BOARD DATE: 10 October 2013
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130001971
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant states:
* a general discharge under honorable conditions exemption policy implies release or freedom from an imposed hardship or penalty
* exemption from military service is immunity from hardship or the cause of harm
* during his military career he never had any type of court-martial or legal issues that would have hindered his enlistment obligations
* upon discharge he was eligible for active Reserve duty and he was told his discharge would automatically be changed to honorable after six months
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 March 1977 for a period of
3 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76W (petroleum supply specialist). On 9 December 1979, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted on
10 December 1979 for a period of 3 years.
3. On 20 January 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties.
4. Records show on 4 May 1981 he was self-referred and enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol abuse and improper use of marijuana.
5. On 25 January 1982, NJP was imposed against the applicant for being derelict in the performance of his duties.
6. On 13 April 1982, he was declared a rehabilitation failure.
7. On 16 April 1982, he was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, for alcohol or other drug abuse.
8. On 26 April 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of his pending separation. He indicated he desired military legal counsel and he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. However, this statement is not available for review.
9. On 29 April 1982, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
10. He was discharged with an under honorable conditions discharge (general discharge) on 6 May 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol or other drug abuse (exemption policy). He had served a total 5 years, 1 month, and 22 days of creditable active service.
11. There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.
12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.
13. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
14. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge, or both, was improper or inequitable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant contends he was told his discharge would automatically be changed to honorable after six months; however, a discharge upgrade is not automatic.
2. His record of service during his last enlistment included two NJPs and his failure to complete the ADAPCP. As a result, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
3. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
___X__ ___X_____ ___X_____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
_______ _ X _______ ___
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130001971
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130001971
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082576C070215
The commanding officer stated that the applicant indicated a desire to be separated from the Army at the earliest opportunity and that he was in the process of being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on alcohol or other drug abuse. Although the applicant's commander directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate, his recommendation for discharge was motivated by the applicant’s conduct related to alcohol or drug abuse. However, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005488
On 26 March 1982, the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuses Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). On 4 August 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of drug abuse (exemption policy) rehabilitation failure. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606989C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 April 1982 the applicants unit commander in consultation with ADAPCP personnel declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. He further outlined the applicants history of alcohol related problems and his failure to satisfy the requirements for successful rehabilitation, as his reasons for taking the action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010507
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Accordingly, he was transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, where he was discharged under honorable conditions on 21 December 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021320
The applicant requests correction of the narrative reason for separation from "Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure" to "Hardship." The SPD code JPD is the correct code for Soldiers separating under chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure and SPD code MDB is the correct code for Soldier's separating under chapter 6 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of hardship. The evidence of record shows the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse problem.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002503C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The ADAPCP staff believed that continued treatment would not have been practical and supported declaring the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 15 November 1982, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090926C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Evidence of record shows the applicant waived his right to consult with counsel prior to his discharge. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012164
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 17 April 1979. On 31 July 1986, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating his separation pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for his continued abuse of alcohol and rehabilitation failure. He was discharged in pay grade E-3 on 3 September 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022856
The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded for the following reasons: a. he was not afforded the opportunity to successfully complete a course for rehabilitation; b. he was never actually found to have had a positive urinalysis; c. he was never found to have bought/sold or otherwise possessed any illegal drugs; d. he was pressured by his company commander and first sergeant to accept his discharge or become part of an ongoing investigation involving the apparent suicide of their...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004917
On 15 August 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for abuse of alcohol, and its effect. He was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 13 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army...