IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016761 


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, he was assigned to a recruiting unit of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC).  He tried several times to be released from training and wanted to return to a modified table of organization and equipment unit because he excelled at the unit level.  He had just been promoted to sergeant first class (SFC)/E-7 in September 1987 and his command kept him assigned to recruiting duties.  Due to unusual circumstances with the command, his chain of command assigned him as a station commander while he was still in training.  He was never trained or prepared for this position.  This created an undue hardship on him and his wife.  The reason he was drinking was because there was no quality of life.  This put so much stress on the family by being separated it caused a marital crisis and the situation with his recruiting unit.  This led him to alcohol abuse.  His wife did not like the hours that he was working.  His command worked him continuously, 7 days a week.  The events mounted up and he was ultimately discharged.  His previous service was honorable.  There were 6 commissioned officers and one noncommissioned officer on his administrative separation board.  The chain of command did not support him.  He should have been allowed to leave recruiting duties. 

3.  The applicant provides a statement from one of his former commanding officers. 


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 14 January 1976 and held military occupational specialties 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist) and 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).   

3.  He served through multiple reenlistments in a variety of stateside or overseas assignments including two tours in Korea and he was advanced to SFC/E-7 on 18 August 1987.  His last assignment was with the U.S. Army Recruiting Company, Sarasota, FL.  

4.  On 25 January 1988, he was reprimanded by the Deputy Commanding General (DCG), USAREC for drunk driving in October 1987.  He was also cautioned by the DCG that repeated offenses could result in action being taken against him. 

5.  On 6 March 1988, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol.  

6.  On 8 March 1988, his immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing two incidents of driving while intoxicated on 11 October 1987 and 6 March 1988.  The applicant was provided a copy of this bar and he submitted a statement on his own behalf wherein he requested to attend the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program.  The approving authority ultimately approved the bar. 

7.  On 22 April 1988, the Chief of Social Actions, Homestead Air Force Base, FL, issued a Summary of Treatment.  He stated the applicant entered the drug and alcohol rehabilitation program as a result of driving under the influence.  He entered into a 15-day group with a regimen of 35 hours of group counseling, 
15 hours of education, 15 hours of physical training, total abstinence from alcohol, and development of goals.  His participation was excellent.  The Chief recommended the applicant progress to follow-up support within 60 days with a regimen to once a month contact with an individual in the chain of command. 

8.  On 23 April 1988, he was involved in a hit and run accident.  Upon investigation by local police, he failed a field sobriety test and he was arrested for driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident.  

9.  On 2 May 1988, the Chief of Social Actions, Homestead Air Force Base, FL, issued a Summary of Treatment.  He stated his office discovered the applicant had been charged with another instance of driving under the influence on 23 April 1988, just one day after finishing the 3-week group where one of his goals was not to drink alcohol.  Since this was the third instance in 7 months, he should be considered an alcohol rehabilitation failure.  

10.  On 5 May 1988, 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 (Personnel Separations) for rehabilitative failure of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) due to alcohol abuse.  The basis for this action was his discreditable involvement with civil authorities by receiving three citations for driving under the influence of alcohol.  He was convicted by civilian court of one charge and he was also pending a court date for two other charges.  Additionally, the commander stated that it was determined further rehabilitative efforts were not practical and rendered the applicant a rehabilitative failure.  

11.  On 11 May 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for rehabilitative failure of the ADAPCP for alcohol abuse, 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.  He requested his case be considered by an administrative separation board and personal appearance with counsel before such board.  





12.  Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, on 19 May 1988, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of rehabilitative failure of ADAPCP due to alcohol abuse.

13.  On 21 June 1981, he was reprimanded by the DCG, USAREC, for having been involved in three incidents of driving while intoxicated.  The reprimand was ordered filed in the performance section of his official military personnel file. 

14.  On 9 August 1988, an administrative separation board convened to determine if the applicant should be discharged for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The applicant and his attorney were present.  The administrative separation board found by a majority that the preponderance of the evidence established that further alcohol rehabilitation efforts were not practical and the applicant was a rehabilitation failure.  The administrative separation board recommended his separation with a General Discharge Certificate.  

15.  On 9 September 1988, following a legal review for legal sufficiency, the convening/separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and ordered the applicant discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  

16.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 23 September 1988.  His
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged 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
12 years, 8 months, and 10 days of creditable active military service.

17.  On 9 November 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board reviewed his separation processing and found it proper and equitable.  Accordingly, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his petition for an upgrade of his discharge. 

18.  He provides a statement from a former commanding officer who describes the applicant as a person of the highest integrity.  He was an outstanding Soldier but has been affected by post-traumatic stress disorder that resulted from his participation in military operations and he also experienced marital problems at the time.  The author recommends an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable. 


19.  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.  

20.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling, rehabilitation, and referral to and enrollment in ADAPCP.  However, despite making good progress in this program, he continued to abuse alcohol and he was therefore declared an alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Accordingly his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  

2.  He elected an administrative separation board which convened and found by a majority that the preponderance of the evidence established that further alcohol rehabilitation efforts were not practical and the applicant was a rehabilitation failure.  The administrative separation board recommended separation with a General Discharge Certificate.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  Contrary to his contention that his chain of command did not support him, the evidence of record clearly shows he was referred to ADAPCP in an effort to help him with his alcohol addiction.  However, the available evidence also shows that despite the multiple efforts to assist him with his alcohol abuse, the applicant failed to display progress toward rehabilitation.  


4.  Based on his record of indiscipline and subsequent alcohol 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)                                         AR20140016761



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016761



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1