BOARD DATE: 22 May 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017130 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 to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he suffered with a drug addiction during his military service. He sought treatment, but was unable to get recovered. He requested to be discharged before he brought any shame on the military and/or himself. His discharge was a disciplinary action by the military, but was his own request due to his drug and alcohol addiction at the time. Since his discharge, he hit rock bottom and was arrested in 2004 for possession. The charge was dismissed on 20 May 2005. After completion of a 1-year court ordered drug rehabilitation program he has not only been clean and sober for almost 10 years, but he is a licensed minister. 3. The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), a completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), Order Dismissing Charge court order, and Graduation Certificate. 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 28 August 1984 for 3 years. He served as a single channel radio operator. On 24 January 1985, he extended his enlistment for 7 months. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 11 May 1985. 3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on/for: * 4 May 1987 – being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 11 February 1987 * 14 August 1987 – wrongfully using cocaine 4. He received counseling between July and August 1988 for suspension of checking cashing privileges, being absent from physical training, and disobeying a lawful order. 5. On 29 July 1988, his command was notified of the revocation of his security clearance and ineligibility for his military occupational specialty. 6. On 30 August 1988, he was notified of suspension of his on-post driving privileges. 7. On 12 September 1988, he was issued an administrative reprimand for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, he acknowledged receipt of the reprimand, and elected to submit a rebuttal. 8. On 3 October 1988, he was notified of revocation of his on-post driving privileges. On 7 October 1988, he acknowledged the notification. 9. On 24 October 1988, he received counseling for being AWOL. 10. On 10 November 1988, he accepted NJP for absenting himself from his place of duty. 11. In his rebuttal, dated 15 December 1988, the applicant requested the reprimand be filed in his restricted record as he was planning to make the military a career. He stated he realized that he made a life endangering decision when he drove under the influence of alcohol. He was given a breathalyzer because of the smell of alcohol in his vehicle and on his breath. He was not an incapable drunk. He was laying an extra hard burden on his pregnant wife for her to drive him any place he needed to go. That was not fair to her and she should not have to suffer during her 8 ½ month of pregnancy with a decision he made at a bad time. He felt that was enough suffering on his part. 12. On 18 January 1989, the Deputy Commanding General, after considering the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, directed the reprimand be filed in the applicant's official military personnel file. 13. On 14 February 1989, the applicant’s company commander notified the applicant of proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct consisting of a DUI, dishonored checks, revocation of security clearance, and record of counselings. The company commander recommended the applicant be issued a general discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 14. On the same day, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and receipt of a general discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 15. On 18 January 1989, the separation authority approved his general discharge. 16. Accordingly, he was discharged in pay grade E-4 on 24 March 1989. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 24 days of net active service. 17. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge. 18. He provided copies of the following: * Order Dismissing Charge court order, dated 20 May 2005, which shows charges were dismissed against him based on his successful completion of the Leon country Drug Intervention Program * Graduation Certificate, dated 20 May 2005, from the Leon Country Drug Court 19. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in: a. Paragraph 14-12b - members are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate. b. Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence shows the applicant received multiple counseling's, two NJPs, revocation of his security clearance, and an administrative reprimand for a DUI during his period of service. His company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a series of misconduct, with a general discharge. 2. It appears that he was separated in pay grade E-4 and issued a general discharge based on his overall record of service. Normally such service as his would have been characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 3. He provided insufficient evidence or a convincing argument to show the quality of his service warranted an upgrade of his general discharge. 4. Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general 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) AR20130017130 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017130 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1