IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  20 March 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130012822 


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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a more favorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was unjust because Fort Dix did not have a front gate to prevent local drug dealers from having access to the Soldiers on post.  He was involved in a major drug ring.  There were no recovery programs to overcome his addiction and he spent two decades before he became sober and began working with addicted veterans.  He served more honorable time at Fort Dix than other than honorable service. 

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 6 March 1986 for a period of    4 years and training as a personnel management specialist.  He completed his basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and his advanced individual training at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana before being transferred to Fort Dix, New Jersey for his first and only assignment. 

3.  On 20 January 1989, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 14 December 1988 to       9 January 1989. 

4.  On 23 February 1989, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, based on his commission of a serious offense (AWOL).  He was advised of his rights and was provided a complete copy of his separation packet.

5.  On 28 February 1989, he again went AWOL.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 21 March 1989 while the applicant was still AWOL and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. 

6.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 28 March 1989 while the applicant was absent in a desertion status.  He had served 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days of active service and he had 55 days of lost time due to being AWOL.

7.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.  However, the evidence of record shows that in May 2000, the staff of the Board advised the applicant to apply to the ADRB.

8.  A review of his official records failed to reveal any indication that the applicant had a substance abuse problem or that he offered any mitigating circumstances surrounding his absence.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

   b.  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.
   
   c.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  Accordingly, the characterization of service and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated and extended nature of his offenses and the lack of mitigating circumstances at the time.  

4.  Accordingly, the applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a general discharge given the amount of time he served.  








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)                                         AR20130012822



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130012822



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1