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 applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 board’s 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 Soldier’s military record that includes the Soldier’s 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 applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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