IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 November 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005745 


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 an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty ) to show his correct date of birth (DOB).

2.  The applicant states his DOB is 6 September 1957, not 2 September 1957. He also states he was told that, six months after his discharge, the Army would change the character of service of his discharge.  He adds that he has been a good citizen since he was discharged.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of 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.  A DD Form 4 (Enlistment or Reenlistment Agreement – Armed Forces of the United States) shows the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 
16 March 1981 for a period of 6 years and that he then further enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 April 1981 for a period of 4 years.  Item 7 (DOB) shows the entry "6 September 1957."

3.  Upon completion of training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewman).  He was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 on 9 October 1981.

4.  The applicant was assigned overseas to Germany on 20 January 1983.

5.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), as follows –

* for striking a Soldier on 16 March 1983
* for disobeying a lawful command from a commissioned officer on 
26 March 1983

6.  On 21 April 1983, in response to the applicant's commander's request for information, the Clinical Director, Community Counseling Center, U.S. Military Community Activity, Neu-Ulm, Germany, confirmed the applicant was enrolled, on 18 March 1983, in Track II of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) following a positive urinalysis for THC.

   a.  He indicated the applicant expressed his intent to continue his use of hashish.  He noted that the applicant was involved in two off-post incidents 
(i.e., driving and wrecking his vehicle while his license was suspended and stealing a purse).  In addition, on 16 March 1983, 15 days after notification of his first positive urinalysis for THC, the applicant again tested positive for THC indicating further THC use.

   b.  The clinical director concurred with the commander's recommendation for separation action.

7.  A certification signed by the applicant's commander shows the applicant underwent a medical examination, was found to meet retention medical standards, and was cleared for administrative discharge proceedings.
 
8.  On 23 June 1983, the applicant's company commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 (Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure).

	a.  The reason for the commander's proposed action was the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 18 March 1983 after testing positive for THC; in April 1983 he was arrested by German police for larceny, which was alcohol-related; and he tested positive for THC a second time within 15 days of his initial urinalysis test for THC.  He concluded that the applicant's lack of effort towards rehabilitation and his prognosis to meet Army standards was poor.

	b.  The applicant was advised of his rights and the separation procedures involved.

   c.  He was also informed that he could receive an honorable discharge certificate or a general discharge certificate, as warranted by his military record.

   d.  The applicant indicated that he did not desire military legal counsel for consultation.  He also elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

9.  The applicant's company commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation based on alcohol abuse or other drug rehabilitation failure.  He also recommended he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 5 July 1983, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 July 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure.  He had completed 2 years, 3 months, and 6 days of net active service during this period.  It also shows in item 5 (DOB) the entry "57 09 02" (i.e., 2 September 1957).

12.  There is no evidence showing the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting a change regarding the reason or character of service of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.

   a.  Chapter 9 provides that separation action will be initiated based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful, or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol, or other drug when the member is enrolled in an ADAPCP and the commander determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the member a rehabilitation failure.  This determination will be made in consultation with the rehabilitation team.  The service of members discharged under this section will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

	b.  Chapter 3, 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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded because he was told that the Army would change the character of service of his discharge six months after he was discharged and he has been a good citizen since he was discharged.  He also contends that the DOB on his DD Form 214 should be corrected.

2.  The evidence of record shows that as part of the applicant's separation processing, the Clinical Director, Community Counseling Center, confirmed the basis for the applicant's enrollment in Track II of the ADAPCP was that he tested positive for THC, the applicant was then involved in an alcohol-related incident, and he again tested positive for THC.  Accordingly, the clinical director concurred with the commander's recommendation for separation action.  In addition, the applicant underwent a medical examination, he was found to meet retention medical standards, and was cleared for administrative discharge proceedings.

3.  The applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on alcohol or other drug rehabilitation failure was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors. All requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Considering all the facts of the case, the reason for his separation and characterization of his service were appropriate and equitable.

4.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant fails to provide sufficient evidence to show that Army officials informed him his discharge would be upgraded six months after he was discharged.


5.  The applicant's contention regarding his post-service conduct was considered.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

6.  Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis for upgrading the applicant's discharge.

7.  Records show the applicant's DOB is 6 September 1957 and that his DOB was correctly recorded in his military service records at the time of his enlistment.  However, it appears his DOB was incorrectly recorded on his DD Form 214 due to an administrative error.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to correct the applicant's DD Form 214 to show his correct DOB.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting from item 5 of his DD Form 214 the current entry and replacing it with the date of birth that is shown on his DD Form 4.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrade of the character of service of his discharge.



      ____________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)                                         AR20140001238



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005745



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1