IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 January 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140008544 


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 general discharge under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states his prior unit commander intended to transfer him to chaplain services.

3.  The applicant provides court documents, dated 2014, pertaining to his refusal of treatment and incompetency to proceed in a criminal case.

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 12 February 1993 for 4 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31F (mobile subscriber equipment network switching systems operator).  On 13 November 1996, he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 14 November 1996 for 3 years.

3.  On 29 January 1997, the following synopsis of the applicant's Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) rehabilitation activities was provided to his unit:

	a.  In December 1993, he was command-referred to ADAPCP as a result of an alcohol-related incident that occurred in advanced individual training (AIT).  He was enrolled in ADAPCP on 14 January 1994.

	b.  He entered the Landstuhl Addictions Treatment Facility on 27 January 1995 and successfully completed the inpatient program on 17 March 1995.  He was satisfactorily disenrolled from ADAPCP on 6 February 1996.

	c.  In December 1996, he was again command-referred to ADAPCP by the Department of Psychiatry in Heidelberg after being admitted for detoxification.  He was enrolled in ADAPCP on 28 January 1997.

	d.  The Clinical Director determined the applicant lacked the motivation for the behavioral change to follow the treatment plan and goals of his ADAPCP enrollment.  His chances for rehabilitation were deemed poor based on his failure to comply with the plans and goals established in his treatment plan.

4.  Discharge proceedings were initiated against him for alcohol or other drug abuse under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9.  The unit commander cited:

* the applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP on 14 January 1994
* he was disenrolled from ADAPCP on 6 February 1996
* he was enrolled in ADAPCP on 28 January 1997 for the second time
* he demonstrated a lack of potential for continued Army service due to his failure to follow his treatment goals as evidenced by his continued substance abuse
* rehabilitation efforts were no longer practical

5.  He consulted with counsel.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

6.  On 25 March 1997, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  He completed 4 years, 1 month, and 14 days of creditable active service.

7.  There is no indication in the available records that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within its 15-year statute of limitations.

8.  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 individuals 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that 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 was command-referred to ADAPCP in 1993 after an alcohol-related incident during AIT.  After completion of the substance abuse program and Landstuhl Addictions Treatment Facility inpatient program, he continued to abuse alcohol and was command-referred to ADAPCP a second time in 1996.

2.  His record of service during his last enlistment included his failure to complete ADAPCP.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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)                                         AR20140008544



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140008544



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1