IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  10 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130003015 


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 an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he did not receive the proper diagnosis for his mental illness which was the underlying cause for his behavior, problems, and excessive drinking.  He was unaware of the seriousness of his mental problems at the time. He knew there was something wrong with him at the time but he was unable to explain what was wrong.  He used alcohol to cope with his issues.  His drinking was a symptom of a greater issue, which is a mental illness, mainly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety.  It took him years of treatment to identify and address his mental health issues.  He is currently receiving help through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

3.  The applicant provides a statement from a psychologist. 

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 June 1982 and held military occupational specialty 31K (Combat Signaler).  He served in Germany from 29 October 1982 to 18 April 1984.  

3.  His records show he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and Overseas Service Ribbon.  

4.  On 29 August 1984, in Tacoma, WA, civilian police officials were dispatched to the scene of an accident after the vehicle he was driving struck the rear portion of a parked vehicle.  Upon arrival, police officials detected a strong odor of intoxicating liquor on his breath.  He was arrested, at which time he began yelling at the civilian police and attempted to strike one of the officers.  A subsequent breathalyzer confirmed the applicant was intoxicated.  He was jailed and subsequently appeared in court where he pled guilty to the charge of driving under the influence (DUI).   

5.  On 14 September 1984, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 5 September 1984.  

6.  On 6 September 1984, he was reprimanded by the Commanding General, Fort Lewis, WA, for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on 29 August 1984.  

7.  On 20 September 1984, subsequent to screening by the Fort Lewis Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and in an effort to help the applicant, his immediate commander recommended him for treatment and rehabilitation and ordered his enrollment in Track II of the ADAPCP for alcohol abuse.  

8.  On 24 September 1984, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties as a result of wrongfully overindulging in intoxicating liquor. 

9.  On 15 November 1984, an ADAPCP Alcohol and Drug Control Officer stated the rehabilitation team met last on 13 November 1984.  They determined the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation.  Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant's lack of progress.  The applicant had failed to remain abstinent from alcohol abuse as required by his treatment plan.  In view of his failure to display significant progress toward rehabilitation, it is the considered opinion of the ADAPCP staff, in consultation with the other members of the individual's Rehab Team, that it has exhausted its resources for achieving successful rehabilitation.  It is therefore recommended the applicant's commander declare him a rehabilitation failure and initiate discharge action.

10.  On 21 November 1984, he underwent a separation medical evaluation.  He was found medically qualified for retention.  No mental disorders were noted in his records.  

11.  On 22 January 1985, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for ADAPCP failure.  The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's rehabilitation failure.  The applicant had been enrolled in Track II, ADAPCP on 20 September 1985.  He did not require detoxification.  His counseling and therapy provided by the ADAPCP staff was weekly or more frequently in the first 30 days, then two times a month for the duration of the rehab.   He received counseling and other rehabilitative assistance from his chain of command, including weekly urinalysis for 30 days, and then once a month.  He recommended a general discharge.  

12.  On 22 January 1985, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for ADAPCP failure, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him.  He indicated he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.  He also understood that he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for an upgrade; however, an act of consideration does not imply that his discharge would be upgraded

13.  Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  He recommended a general discharge.

14.  On 8 February 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 14 February 1985.  

15.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 14 February 1985 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "drug abuse – rehabilitation failure" with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.  This form further shows he completed 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days of creditable active military service and he had 2 days of lost time.

16.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  He provides a statement, dated 8 January 2013, from a VA staff psychologist who states he has been caring for him since May 2012.  He states the applicant related two severely traumatic incidents that happened to him in childhood and adolescence.  He has struggled to cope in various maladaptive ways as a result.  The psychologist opines that were it not for his trauma, the applicant would have been able to serve without any complications.  He supports his efforts to upgrade his discharge. 

18.  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 Soldiers 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.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures.  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant exhibited an alcohol abuse problem and he was provided with the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling, rehabilitation, and referral to and enrollment in the ADAPCP. However, he showed poor rehabilitation potential.  He was therefore declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and accordingly his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  Nothing in the applicant's records shows his suffered from a mental disorder such as PTSD, anxiety, or depression.  Likewise, nothing in the records shows the applicant's service was interrupted by a mental disorder.  The available evidence clearly shows despite the multiple efforts to assist him with his alcohol abuse, the applicant failed to display progress toward rehabilitation.  

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline and subsequent ADAPCP rehabilitation failure, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, his service does not warrant an honorable discharge.

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)                                         AR20130003015





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130003015



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1