IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 1 April 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130013784
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 general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that he has been employed by the Postal Service for the past 25 years and has been a respectful citizen. His insurance company (USAA) wants to drop him from their insurance plans because of his discharge. He is a disabled veteran who is struggling financially and needs his discharge upgraded.
3. The applicant provides a one-page letter explaining his application.
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. After serving in the New York Army National Guard the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 August 1979 and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina for duty as a cannoneer.
3. On 30 June 1981, he reenlisted for a period of 6 years.
4. On 22 August , he was transferred to Germany for assignment to an artillery battery in Idar-Oberstein.
5. On 7 February 1985, field grade nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for testing positive during a urinalysis for the use of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
6. On 1 April 1985, he was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for drug and alcohol problems. He was placed in Track II of the program.
7. On 10 April 1985, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment. He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicants disciplinary record, four instances of failure to pay his debts, failure to respond to repeated counseling sessions and poor performance. The battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment on
10 May 1985.
8. On 22 September 1985, he was declared a drug and alcohol rehabilitation failure by the ADAPCP Director.
9. On 7 October 1985, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.
10. On 4 November 1985, field grade NJP was again imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana in the hashish form.
11. On 3 December 1985, the applicants commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation failure.
12. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived his rights, elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and declined treatment in a Veterans Administration Hospital.
13. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
23 December 1985 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
14. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 January 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to drug abuse rehabilitation failure. He had served 6 years, 4 months, and 15 days of active service during the period under review.
15. There is no evidence in his official records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
16. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse. A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Characterization of service will be determined solely by the Soldiers military record that includes the Soldiers behavior and performance during the current enlistment.
17. 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 applicants administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicants rights. Accordingly, he was given the proper narrative reason for his separation and he has provided no evidence to justify an upgrade of his discharge.
2. The applicants contentions have been noted; however, his overall record of service does not constitute fully honorable service.
3. Additionally, the Board does not arbitrarily upgrade discharges simply to qualify individuals for benefits.
4. Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request for an upgrade of his 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) AR20130013784
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130013784
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009266
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. 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. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130009810
On 20 September 1985, his company commander formally notified him of the initiation of separation action for alcohol and drug rehabilitation failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, and that he was recommending a general discharge. 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. The available evidence does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his...
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 | CY2011 | 20110003485
Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 10 May 1985. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012023
The applicant states that after serving a brief period of time he was discharged for alcohol abuse and since his discharge he has gone through treatment programs which he continues to this date. Accordingly, 21 March 1986, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, with a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130017151
He was discharged from active duty on 4 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. There is no indication that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to request an upgrade of his characterization of service within that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record show the applicant received an LOR of marijuana use, two...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003015
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. 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,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015002
The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 30 July 1985, the applicant consulted with military counsel. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014385
In the years following her discharge she continued to abuse alcohol. The applicant's military records show she enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 31 October 1984, for 4 years. She was discharged in pay grade E-1 on 5 December 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006300
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 28 June 1983. The reasons for the proposed action were: (1) efforts to rehabilitate him had proven futile; (2) numerous counselings by his chain of command had negative results; (3) his immaturity and problems following orders from his chain of command; and (4) his involvement in several alcohol-related incidents, the most recent resulting in him assaulting a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and being...