IN THE CASE OF:     

		BOARD DATE:     8 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140020104 


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 changing his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he was separated early as an overseas returnee rather than for "Alcohol Abuse - Rehabilitation Failure." 

2.  The applicant states he was never in alcohol rehabilitation.  He received several safe driving awards and never lost his driver's license.  Someone changed his DD Form 214.  He never received a separation physical.

3.  The applicant provides copies of a DD Form 214 showing he was honorably discharged, effective 24 May 1983, due to "Early Release - Overseas Returnee"  and another DD Form 214 showing he was discharged the same date due to "Alcohol Abuse - Rehabilitation Failure."

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.  Following prior enlisted Regular Army (RA) and reserve service the applicant enlisted in the RA on 5 January 1981.  He held military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police).

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows:

	a.  He served in Germany from 5 May 1981 through 23 May 1983.

	b.  He was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Army Commendation Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal (2 Awards), Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Pistol, Grenade, and Rifle Bars. 

	c.  The highest rank/grade he attained was specialist four (SP4)/E-4.

4.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 25 January 1983 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and for being drunk and disorderly on 25 November 1982.

5.  A 18 March 1983, Pinder Counseling Center memorandum, Subject:  Synopsis of Rehabilitation Efforts shows the applicant had been referred to the clinic because of the 25 November 1982 driving while intoxicated (DWI) incident. He was scheduled for two counseling sessions; however, he failed to show for one and was minimally cooperative for the other session.  He had indicated he did not feel he needed to be enrolled in the program.  The memorandum further shows, "Within the past week, the applicant was apprehended for a second driving while intoxicated (DWI) incident with a blood alcohol level of 2.25.  In view of the second DWI and in consultation with the Commander, it is now apparent that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical at this time.  We therefore recommend the SM [service member] be separated from the service via a Chapter 9 IAW [in accordance with] provisions of AR 635-200.

6.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action.  The immediate commander indicated that the applicant's conduct as a military police brought discredit upon the military, the Military Police Corps, and the outstanding professional Soldiers of his peer group.  He had demonstrated ignorance of the UCMJ, Army regulations, and policies pertaining to the wrongful use of alcohol while driving a privately owned vehicle.  The applicant had received NJP on 25 January 1983 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and disorderly conduct, and he was found guilty by a summary court-martial for an 11 March 1983 incident of DUI and operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license.  He was further advised he was entitled to a complete medical examination.  There is no record of the complete medical examination in the available records.

7.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification.  He indicated he did not desire that military legal counsel for consultation be appointed to assist him and he requested treatment in a Veterans Administration (VA) medical center.  He indicated he would submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement, he stated that he understood he was to be discharged and had no animosity towards the Army.  He realized he was ill due to alcohol abuse.  He stated he felt that had he received help sooner the circumstances leading to his discharge would have been entirely different.  He believed the frustrations that he encountered on his job led to his drinking problem.  He indicated he would seek rehabilitation at the VA hospital in West Orange, New Jersey.  He was a prior-service Soldier and had completed a prior three-year enlistment with an honorable discharge and the rank of E-5.  He had received the National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal (2 Awards), and the Army Commendation Medal.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the applicant be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  On 24 May 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 20 days of active duty service during the period covered by the DD Form 214 and a total of 6 years, 3 months, and 15 days of active duty service.

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board. for a change to his narrative reason for separation within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  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 for rehabilitation 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence does not support the applicant's assertions that he was never in alcohol rehabilitation.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant had an alcohol abuse problem and received NJP on 25 January 1983 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and for being drunk and disorderly.  He was referred for rehabilitation and received NJP on 25 January 1983 for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and he was found guilty by a summary court-martial for an 11 March 1983 incident of DUI and operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license.

3.  He was declared a 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.  There is an insufficient basis for granting his requested 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)                                         AR20100012492



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140020104



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1