BOARD DATE:	  31 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140012664 


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 under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, it has been over 20 years since his discharge.  He also states he felt "there was discrimination between my platoon SGT [sergeant] & me."  The battalion sergeant major made the platoon sergeant apologize to him (the applicant) and things went downhill from there.  He was also told his discharge would be upgraded after 6 months. 

3.  The applicant provides 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.  The applicant's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 October 1987 and held military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).  He served in Germany from 12 February 1988 to 2 April 1989. 

3.  His records show he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16), Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol Bar, and Driver and Mechanic Badge with Wheel Vehicle. 

4.  On 14 November 1988, he was enrolled in the Frankfurt Military Community Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  

5.  On 13 December 1988, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order on two separate occasions.  

6.  On 25 January 1989, in response to the applicant's battalion commander, the Clinical Director, Frankfurt Military Community provided a synopsis of the applicant's ADAPCP rehabilitative activities.  He stated the applicant was enrolled on 14 November 1988.  The ADAPCP staff recommendation for residential treatment was accepted by the commander provided the Soldier demonstrated a willingness to help himself.  The applicant participated in eight group sessions in Track II, but he continued to abuse alcohol.  Failure status was declared after he was found to be intoxicated on duty.  His prognosis was poor. 

7.  On 24 February 1989, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) for ADAPCP failure.  The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's continued alcohol abuse and rehabilitation failure.  He recommended a general discharge.  

8.  On 7 March 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for ADAPCP failure, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him.  He indicated he understood he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.  He also understood that he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the ABCMR for an upgrade; however, an act of consideration does not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

9.  Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  The immediate commander stated the applicant continued substandard performance, he had not shown any improvement, and he lacked initiative.  A general discharge was recommended.

10.  On 15 March 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 3 April 1989.  

11.  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.  This form further shows he completed 
1 year, 5 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service.

12.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 an entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.  

14.  Paragraph 3-7 of this regulation 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.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant exhibited an alcohol abuse problem and he was provided with the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling, rehabilitation, and referral to and enrollment in the ADAPCP. However, he showed poor rehabilitation potential.  He was therefore declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and accordingly his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  Nothing in the applicant's records shows his discharge was related to discrimination or a disagreement with his platoon sergeant.  The available evidence clearly shows despite the multiple efforts to assist him with his alcohol abuse, the applicant failed to display progress toward rehabilitation.  

3.  The Army never had a policy wherein a characterization of service is upgraded due to the passage of time.  Based on his record of indiscipline and subsequent ADAPCP rehabilitation failure, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, his service does not warrant an honorable 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)                                         AR20140012664



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140012664



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1