IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020242 


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 undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states he originally applied for an upgrade of his discharge on 25 June 1985; however, when he requested a copy of his upgrade he was told that he had not applied.  He joined the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) and later requested a transfer to a unit in Tennessee because he was moving.  He was told his unit was understrength and he would not be transferred. He moved to Tennessee, missed too much drill time, and was involuntarily ordered to active duty.

3.  Due to his parents getting a divorce and alcohol being so cheap on base he started drinking excessively.  He also started getting valium at this time and became addicted to alcohol and valium.  When he asked for help he was placed in detoxification (detox) and rehabilitation (rehab).  Rehab only taught him meditation and sent him to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings.  He continued on the drugs and alcohol.  He held a nuclear duty position and his secret clearance was revoked.  He went absent without leave (AWOL) and turned himself at Fort Gordon, GA.  He was still drinking heavily.  Knowing he had problems, a doctor at Fort Gordon still prescribed valium for him again.

4.  He drank a lot and overdosed on approximately 30 valium.  When he woke up in the hospital he was immediately seen by mental health even though he barely knew where he was or what he had done.  He doesn't remember what he told them and feels they should have talked to him when he was in better shape to know what was going on.  When he got out of the hospital he was threatened with a court-martial and possible jail time if he did not accept an undesirable discharge.  He was still not in his right mind and did not understand most of what he was signing.

5.  The applicant provides:

* orders for discharge from the SCARNG
* Personnel Screening and Evaluation Record
* reverse side of his Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical Examination)
* a letter, dated 22 August 1975, from Headquarters, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC)
* a sworn statement, dated 28 August 1995, from Specialist (SPC) E______. 
* a prescription, dated 13 March 2006, from the B-L Family Practice, P.A.
* DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) with an effective date of 8 September 1975 
* DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Army Forces of the Armed Forces of the United States)
* two personal references 

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 20 April 1973, he enlisted in the SCARNG for 6 years.  He completed a period of active duty from 13 June to 26 October 1973.

3.  On 26 August 1974, he was involuntarily ordered to active duty with an effective date of 1 October 1974 for a period of 19 months and 16 days.  He was discharged from the SCARNG effective 30 September 1974.

4.  On 30 July 1975, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from:

* on or about 15 May 1975 to on or about 3 June 1975
* on or about 5 June 1975 to on or about 29 July 1975

5.  On 1 August 1975, the applicant was seen and evaluated by the Chief, Adult Psychiatry, DDEAMC.  

	a.  The applicant was admitted to DDEAMC on 1 August 1975 reportedly secondary to a mild drug overdose and acute intoxication.  He was previously AWOL from Fort Belvoir and voluntarily turned himself in to the Personnel Control Facility (PCF) at Fort Gordon approximately 1 week prior to admission.  The applicant stated he had increased his alcohol intake recently secondary to severe family problems and being on active duty.  He also stated he took the overdose and alcohol in an attempt to gain release from active duty.

	b.  The applicant had a history of drug overdose and acute intoxication.  He also had a history of habitual excessive drinking with participation in the Alcohol and Drug Dependency Intervention Council (ADDIC) Program.

	c.  The examiner found:

		(1)  The applicant met the retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 and there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.

		(2)  The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

		(3)  In view of the applicant's history and present status it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop him into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.

		(4)  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command.

6.  On 4 August 1975, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of 
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).  He understood he could request discharge for the good of the service because charges had been preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He stated he was making his request of his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion whatsoever by any person.  He acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel prior to making this request.  He acknowledged he understood the elements of the offense he was charged with and he was:

* guilty of the offense with which he was charged
* making the request of his own free will
* advised he may be furnished an Undesirable Discharge Certificate
* advised he could submit statements in his own behalf (he indicated he would not submit a statement)

7.  In addition, the applicant was advised he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he was issued an undesirable discharge and he:

* would be deprived of many or all Army benefits
* may be ineligible for many or all veteran's benefits
* may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws

8.  The applicant's commander and intermediate commander recommended the applicant's request for discharge be approved and that he be issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 14 August 1975, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and reduction to the lowest grade.

10.  On 28 August 1975, an investigating officer found the applicant's apparent intentional overdose of valium was not in line of duty - due to own misconduct.  On 29 August 1975, the appointing authority approved the finding and on 
8 September 1975, the reviewing authority approved the finding.

11.  On 8 September 1975, he was discharged under the provisions of 
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 and issued an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.  He completed 8 months and 17 months of active service that was characterized as under conditions other than honorable.  He had 81 days of time lost.

12.  The reverse side of an SF 93, dated 31 July 1975, submitted by the applicant, noted he was hospitalized at Fort Belvoir, VA, in 1975 for detox and approximately 45 days in the Alcohol and Drug Control Facility after detox.
13.  In a sworn statement, dated 28 August 1995, SPC E______ stated the applicant reported to him at 1200 hours on 31 July 1975 and informed him that he had taken an overdose of pills prescribed for his nervous condition.  He also stated that he had consumed about one-half of a case of beer.  SPC E______ called the hospital for an ambulance, which arrived at approximately 0012 hours.

14.  A prescription for the applicant from B-L Family Practice, PA, dated 
13 March 2006, stated he could not be left alone due to health problems. 

15.  The applicant provided two personal references.

	a.  In a statement, dated 27 August 2013, Mr. Ronald C. G_____ stated he had known the applicant for about 4 years.  He stated the applicant had proven to be a good and trusted friend.  He had learned to trust him as a friend and as a veteran.

	b.  In an undated statement Ms. Lucretia H_____ stated she had the utmost respect and trust in the applicant.  He was always willing to talk to her and listen to her troubles.  He was a good listener, advisor, and friend.  She could always count on him to help her.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 10, in effect at the time, stated a member who was charged with an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request could be submitted at any time after charges had been preferred and must have included the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, at the time an Undesirable Discharge Certificate was normally furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service.

	b.  A general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it was issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he overdosed on 30 valium and when he woke up in the hospital he was immediately seen by mental health.  He doesn't remember what he told them and they should have waited until he was in better shape to talk to him.  When he got out of the hospital he was threatened with a court-martial and possible jail time if he did not accept an undesirable discharge.  He was still not in his right mind and did not understand most of what he was signing.

2.  However, on 1 August 1975, the Chief, Adult Psychiatry, DDEAMC found that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command.  After consulting with counsel, he requested discharge for the good of the service on 4 August 1975, 3 days after his overdose.  Therefore, the evidence does not support his contentions.

3.  His voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service to avoid trial by court-martial was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  During his short period of service he incurred 81 days of lost time.  Therefore, his service is considered unsatisfactory.  The undesirable discharge he received accurately reflected his overall record of service during his short period of active service.

5.  Based on the foregoing, there is no basis for upgrading 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)                                         AR20130020242



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130020242



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1