IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  6 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130009266 


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 changed to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was seeking help for a drug problem (marijuana) while stationed in Germany and the only program available at the time was for alcohol
* he joined that program and he was in the program at the time of his discharge
* after leaving the Army, he was able to get clean and he has been off drugs for 28 years
* he is a life-time member of the American Veterans, a father of three daughters, and a grandfather
* he is tired of feeling ashamed of his discharge 

3.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 8 June 1990, from the Division of Alcoholism in Ohio.

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 2 February 1982 for a period of 
4 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63H (track vehicle repairer).  

3.  On 7 December 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation (possessing drug paraphernalia) and using marijuana.

4.  A bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant on 27 December 1984.

5.  Records show:

   a.  On 7 January 1985, he was enrolled in Track II of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for hashish abuse and possession of drug paraphernalia.  

	b.  Commander consults indicated he continued to use drugs based on health and welfare inspections in the billets. 

	c.  On 9 April 1985, counselor’s assessment of his rehabilitation potential was poor.

6.  On 23 April 1985, NJP was imposed against him for violating a lawful general regulation (possessing drug paraphernalia).

7.  On 25 April 1985, he was declared a rehabilitation failure.  

8.  On 25 April 1985, he was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, for drug abuse.  The unit commander cited that he was declared a rehabilitation failure.  

9.  On 25 April 1985, he acknowledged receipt of the notification letter.  He elected not to consult military legal counsel and acknowledged he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued to him.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 
10.  On 29 April 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

11.  He was discharged with an under honorable conditions discharge (general discharge) on 22 May 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse, rehabilitation failure.  He had served a total 3 years, 3 months, and 21 days of creditable active service.

12.  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.

13.  He provides a letter, dated 8 June 1990, from the Division of Alcoholism, District of Board of Health in Lancaster, Ohio which indicates that office found no evidence of alcohol or drug dependency in their evaluation/assessment.  

14.  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.

15.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he was seeking help for a drug problem (marijuana) while stationed in Germany and the only program available at the time was for alcohol.  However, evidence shows he was enrolled in the ADAPCP which stands for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program. 

2.  His sobriety and post-service accomplishments are commendable.  However, good post-service conduct alone is normally not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

3.  His record of service included two NJPs, a bar to reenlistment, 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.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns; however, he failed to do so.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  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)                                         AR20130009266



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130009266



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1