IN THE CASE OF: HAMMILL, BRIAN K. BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014105 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ___x____ ____x ___ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014105 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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 October 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150014105 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 character of service from under honorable conditions (general) to honorable. 2. The applicant states he was not in the right frame of mind at the time of his discharge. His sister died tragically and he caught his wife and best friend in bed together. 3. The applicant provides no additional documents. 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. After completing prior enlisted service, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 November 1982. 3. On 8 September 1983, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for, in effect, failing to show up for guard duty because he was intoxicated and; therefore, being incapable of performing guard duty. 4. His service record contains a memorandum, dated 8 June 1984, from an Alcohol and Drug Control Officer who provided the following comments: a. The applicant was a self-referral to the Fort Lewis, Madigan Army Medical Center Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 15 July 1983. On the same date, the ADAPCP staff performed initial screening/evaluation that revealed the primary substance of abuse was alcohol. The initial screening also revealed the use/abuse of cannabis. b. The Rehabilitation Team, which included the unit commander, ADAPCP counselor, the applicant, and others as appropriate, met on 18 July 1983 and determined that the applicant had problems significant enough to warrant enrollment in Track II. c. A medical evaluation conducted on 8 August 1983 confirmed abuse of alcohol and cannabis. d. Various efforts and resources were made available to assist the applicant in rehabilitation, including command consultation, counseling/therapy, weekly urinalysis then once a month for duration, Antabuse (Disulfiram) for 30 days, and basic alcohol education. e. The applicant failed to comply with treatment plans and goals and showed no progress since treatment began. The applicant's commander recommended his elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 (Separation for Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse). f. It was recommended that the applicant be declared a rehabilitation failure and his command initiate discharge action. 5. On 21 June 1984, in consultation with the Rehabilitation Team, the unit commander declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. 6. On 21 June 1984, his unit commander informed him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. He was advised of his rights. The unit commander stated the reason for proposed separation action as the applicant's failure to comply with treatment plans and goals. 7. On 21 June 1984, the applicant acknowledged receipt of notification of the separation action. He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, declined to submit statements in his behalf, and declined treatment in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. 8. On 22 June 1984, the appropriate separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 9. On 5 July 1984, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure with service characterized as general under honorable conditions. He completed 1 year, 7 months, and 13 days of creditable active service with no lost time during the period under review. 10. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. REFERENCES: 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. Nothing in this chapter prevents separation of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provisions of this regulation. 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 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: 1. The applicant's service record shows he received an Article 15 for failing to report to guard duty because he was intoxicated. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse problem. He was provided an opportunity to overcome his problem by self-referral to and enrollment in the ADAPCP. However, he failed to comply with treatment plans and showed poor rehabilitation potential. Therefore, he was declared an alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure. Accordingly, his unit commander initiated separation action against him. 3. The evidence of record shows his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. In accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, his service did not meet the criteria for an honorable characterization of service. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014105 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150014105 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2