IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: : 9 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006862 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 correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he received an honorable discharge (HD) vice a general discharge (GD). 2. The applicant states he believes he is entitled to an HD due to a change in his situation. He has been clean and sober for 10 years now. 3. The applicant does not provide any documentary evidence in support of his request. 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. On 16 April 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 13F (Fire Support Specialist). 3. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) dated 13 August 1984, shows the applicant entered a residential treatment facility (RTF) on 10 July 1984 in Seoul, Korea. The clinical director diagnosed him with a provisional diagnosis of acute psychosis resulting from an amphetamine overdose. The applicant denied having problems, and he disrupted the treatment program by questioning the staff’s motives and the treatment process. In addition, he claimed that he would not stay in treatment; therefore, the director recommended that he be considered for separation from military service. 4. On 11 January 1985, the clinical director of the RTF submitted another DA Form 2496 which stated the following: a. The service member had been enrolled in the RTF for alcohol and for multiple drugs. b. The service member had received in-house treatment from 10 July 1984 to 13 August 1984. c. The clinical director rated the applicant’s conduct and job performance as unsatisfactory. d. The service member had discontinued therapeutic treatment and had a reported incident of substance abuse. He had shown no motivation to continue in rehabilitation. After consultation with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) staff, it was determined that he was no longer a candidate for further rehabilitation and he was cleared by the ADAPCP for administrative action. 5. On 31 January 1985, the applicant’s commanding officer notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 9-2a(1), due to his failure in the ADAPCP rehabilitation program and for his demonstrated lack of potential for continued Army service. He informed him that if his recommendation was approved, he would receive an HD or GD Certificate. He was also advised of his rights. 6. The applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him and its effect, of the rights available to him, and of the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. 7. On 1 February 1985, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 9-2a(1), as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The rehabilitation team met and determined that further rehabilitative efforts were not practical, rendering the rehabilitation attempt a failure. 8. On 9 February 1985, the separation authority directed the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. He directed that he receive a GD Certificate. 9. On 21 February 1985, the applicant was discharged in accordance with the separation authority's decision. He completed 4 years, 10 months, and 6 days of net active service. His DD Form 214 accurately reflects the reason and authority for his discharge as well as the characterization of his service. 10. There is no evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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 the 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 entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an HD 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 available evidence does not support the applicant's request for an upgrade of his GD to an HD. 2. The record shows the service member was discharged as a rehabilitation failure primarily because he had discontinued therapeutic treatment and had a reported incident of substance abuse and he had shown no motivation to continue in rehabilitation. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout his discharge processing. 3. Once he had been placed in the ADAPCP, he was obligated to meet program requirements. Failure to do so constituted a failure to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. The separation authority determined a GD was appropriate. There is no evidence of mitigating factors that would support changing the separation authority's decision. 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) AR20130019388 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006862 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1