Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018824
Original file (20130018824.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130018824 


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 upgrade of his general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he had a drug problem in the service.  He was offered a chance to go to rehabilitation, but then he was discharged before he even got a chance to finish 2 years.  He has been looking for help for years.  Recently someone at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Jackson, Mississippi helped him.  He believes that if he had been allowed to complete the Army rehabilitation program he would have been able to finish his enlistment.

3.  The applicant provides copies 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.  On 19 August 1986, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training as an infantryman and qualified as Expert with the rifle and hand grenade.

3.  He was awarded the Driver and Mechanic Badge with Driver Bar and was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 19 February 1987.

4.  In September 1987, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for using marijuana.   

5.  Following a positive urinalysis for marijuana on 10 February 1988, he voluntarily asked to be placed in the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program.  

6.  On 21 March 1988 the applicant's chain of command reported to the director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) that the applicant was disinterested in the program or staying in the Army.  The program director concurred and, on 21 March 1988, recommended separation.

7.  On 29 March 1988, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for using marijuana.

8.  The company commander notified the applicant that he was recommending separation with a general discharge for drug abuse.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged the consequences of receiving a general under honorable conditions discharge, and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  The chain of command recommended approval and the separation authority directed a general discharge under honorable conditions.

10.  On 12 May 1988, the applicant was so separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 24 days of active duty service.

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

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b states 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.  

	c.  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 entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP and indicated he was disinterested in the program.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a general discharge.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.

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)                                         AR20130018824





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130018824



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002873

    Original file (20150002873.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 25 April 1988 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. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027848

    Original file (20100027848.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that after speaking with an attorney, he was advised that he could not be discharged for being a rehabilitative failure while he was in rehabilitation. The applicant's records show he was counseled on 12 separate occasions for: * testing positive for both tetrahydrocannabinol and cocaine during a troop urinalysis * overall performance * failing to report to physical training * failing...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016761

    Original file (20140016761.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He stated the applicant entered the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program as a result of driving under the influence. On 9 August 1988, an administrative separation board convened to determine if the applicant should be discharged for alcohol rehabilitation failure. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure" with a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004794

    Original file (20110004794.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the applicant's record showing he was prohibited from participating in substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Army Regulation 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program) states legal and administrative actions against a Soldier on deployment orders with a confirmed positive drug test may be suspended at the discretion of the separation authority until the Soldier’s unit redeploys from the theater of combat operations. There is no evidence in the applicant's record,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012664

    Original file (20140012664.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 3 April 1989. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged on 3 April 1989 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure" with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020133

    Original file (20120020133.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The clinical director stated: * the applicant was command referred on 15 October 1987 * the initial screening/evaluation found the applicant had a significant history of alcohol abuse * the applicant was enrolled in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Track II on 24 March 1988 and subsequently changed to Track III on 13 April 1988 * the applicant was released early from in-patient services due to his failure to participate fully in the rehabilitation * the ADAPCP...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075052C070403

    Original file (2002075052C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was noted that he must continue attending ADAPCP counseling and otherwise comply with the treatment plan until his discharge or face disciplinary action. On 9 June 1995, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 because he failed to achieve successful rehabilitation and he failed to comply with the prescribed treatment plans and goals. He was still required to complete...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | AR20090004136

    Original file (AR20090004136.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 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. The applicant was informed by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 9, Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009497

    Original file (20100009497.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that the separation authority (Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9) and the narrative reason for separation (drug abuse rehabilitation failure) be removed from his discharge record. The applicant contends that the separation authority (Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9) and the narrative reason for separation (drug abuse rehabilitation failure) should be removed from his discharge record.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003546

    Original file (20090003546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The company commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were: (1) the applicant had been command referred to the ADAPCP for a positive urinalysis for marijuana, (2) he was initially enrolled in Track II and while enrolled in Track II he admittedly continued to use illegal drugs. Accordingly, on 26 May 1988 the applicant was discharged from active duty, in pay grade...