IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007648 


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, in effect, an upgrade of her discharge under other than honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states:

* she served on active duty for 13 years
* she has unsuccessfully attempted to receive veterans' benefits since her discharge
* nearly 30 years have passed since her discharge and she paid for her mistake

3.  The applicant provides her 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 1975.  She completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist).

3.  On 7 September 1986, a urine sample submitted by the applicant during a unit urinalysis tested positive for a controlled substance.

4.  On 9 October 1986, all favorable personnel actions for the applicant were suspended pending the investigation of her abuse of a controlled substance.

5.  On 26 November 1986, she was referred to the Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  On the same day, she was counseled regarding testing positive for cocaine and was placed in outpatient treatment under Track II of the ADAPCP.

6.  On 5 December 1986, the applicant was counseled regarding testing positive for cocaine.  She was recommended for inpatient treatment under Track III of the ADAPCP.  She continued outpatient treatment as there was no availability for the recommended inpatient treatment.

7.  On 22 January 1987, she was declared a rehabilitative failure by the ADAPCP staff under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-85 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program).

8.  A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 January 1987, shows the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, and was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command.

9.  On 28 April 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using a controlled substance and was subsequently reduced in rank from sergeant to specialist four.

10.  On 18 May 1987, the applicant's immediate commander initiated discharge action against her based on her abuse of a controlled substance and failure to rehabilitate from the abuse of a controlled substance.  The applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge she could receive, the possible effects of this discharge, and the procedures and rights available to her.  She did not submit statements in her own behalf and waived her rights to an administrative separation board.

11.  On 24 June 1987, the Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, approved the recommended discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct drug abuse.

12.  On 29 June 1987, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 12 years, 5 months, and 27 days of total active service.

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

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

	b.  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.

	c.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her discharge under other than honorable conditions was carefully considered.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The ABCMR does not grant requests for discharge upgrades solely for the purpose of making the applicant eligible for veterans' or medical benefits.  Granting veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR.  Any questions regarding eligibility for veterans' benefits should be addressed to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

4.  In view of the foregoing there is no basis for granting the request relief.

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 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)                                         AR20140007648



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140007648



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1