IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 1 May 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130015652 


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 upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was in his eighth year and his third enlistment.  He had no intention of going anywhere.  He feels he was railroaded by his command.

3.  The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation.

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 22 October 1984.  He completed training, including basic airborne training, and he was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He reenlisted twice and the highest rank/grade he attained was sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

3.  His records show he served in Italy from 10 July 1986 through 2 February 1987 and in Panama from 29 January 1990 through 28 January 1991.

4.  A 5 March 1992, memorandum, Subject:  Assessment Summary shows the applicant enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 3 June 1991 as a self-referral for alcohol dependence.  His progress was not satisfactory due to an alcohol-related incident.  Paragraph 7 of the memorandum shows:  He had reportedly been charged with driving while intoxicated on 29 February 1992.  He acknowledged drinking at least six beers on the day of the incident.  He was considered a rehabilitation failure.

5.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him.  The immediate commander indicated that the applicant had a record of substantial counseling since being assigned to the unit.  He had established a pattern of alcohol abuse to include an incident of driving under the influence (DUI).  He had been declared a rehabilitation failure from the ADAPCP for drinking while enrolled in the program.  He was pending a field grade nonjudicial punishment for the DUI offense.  The commander recommended a general discharge.

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification.  He consulted with counsel 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 that were available to him.  He indicated he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.  He indicated he would submit a statement on his own behalf and requested to be heard before an administrative separation board.  No statement is available and he later withdrew his request for an administrative separation board. 

7.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  On 6 May 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9.  He had completed 7 years, 6 months, and 15 days of active service.


8.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board.

9.  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.  

10.  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.  There is no evidence to support the applicant's assertion that he was railroaded by his command.  

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem.  He was provided the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling and enrollment in the ADAPCP; however, he showed poor rehabilitation potential in that he was involved in an alcohol-related incident by being charged with DUI.  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.

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


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)                                         AR20100012492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130015652



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1