IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  13 January 2015  	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008775 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he reported his military sexual trauma to the first sergeant and was called a dirty maggot and was told “How dare You ruin a[n] NCO’s career.”  He was treated like a criminal by his entire chain of command for being raped and offered only a change of duty station or discharge, but no help.  He suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for years because he could not talk about it.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision.

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 4 June 1981 for a period of        3 years and assignment to Europe.  He completed his one-station unit training as a self-propelled field artillery turret mechanic at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and was transferred to Bad Kissingen, Germany on 8 January 1982. 

3.  On 10 August 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the wrongful possession of marijuana in the hashish form.

4.  On 19 August 1982, he was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP).

5.  On 27 September 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s lack of discipline, motivation, and inability to adjust to military life. 

6.  The applicant elected to submit a two-page statement in his own behalf in which he stated, in effect, that it was hard for him to adjust to military life and that he had resorted to drugs and alcohol as a way to cope.  He indicated that he needed to get away from military life or he would end up in jail.  He also stated that he held a third degree black belt in martial arts and he found it hard to restrain himself from hurting someone.  Additionally, he felt that further active service would be a detriment to both the government and himself.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on     30 September 1982 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 October 1982 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31b(2) and the EDP for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.  He had served 1 year, 4 months and 10 days of active service.

9.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.  

10.  The VA Rating Decision provided by the applicant shows that he was granted service-connection for PTSD on 21 March 2013 based on military sexual trauma.

11. The Department of the Army began testing the EDP in October 1973.  In a message, dated 8 November 1974, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel announced the expansion of the EDP.  The program provided for the separation of Soldiers whose acceptability, performance of duty, and/or potential for continued effective service fall below the standards required for retention in the Army.  Soldiers could be separated under this program when subjective evaluation of their commanders identified them as lacking qualities for continued military service because of attitude, motivation, self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative discharge was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no violations of the applicant’s rights.  Although he could have been recommended for discharge for misconduct based on his use of illegal drugs, his commander elected to recommend discharge under the EDP.  The fact that he was discharged for this more favorable reason indicates his commander took into consideration the entirety of his military service, to include any mental health diagnoses he may have had at the time of discharge.  Accordingly, his discharge and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant's contentions have been noted, but they are not supported by the evidence of record.  He had a chance to make this contention when he submitted a statement in his own behalf at the time but did not.  His service simply did not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant an upgrade of 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)                                         AR20140008775





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008775



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1