IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000527 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 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000527 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 April 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000527 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. 2. The applicant states he was discharged under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). a. He was young and immature and had no one to advise him. He developed a drinking problem as a result of his assignment in Germany. If he had known better he would not have accepted the discharge. He would have stayed in the Army and sought treatment for his alcohol abuse problem. b. He has now recovered and he did not realize the harm the disease caused him until he finally got treatment for the disease. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 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 5 October 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K (tactical wire operations specialist). 3. He was assigned to Germany and reported on 5 March 1982. He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 5 April 1982. 4. On 19 May 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for possession of marijuana. His punishment included a forfeiture of pay, 14 days of restriction and extra duty, and reduction to pay grade E-1. On 21 June 1982, he failed to report to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed and received a second NJP. 5. On 25 June 1982, the applicant’s company commander notified the applicant that he was being considered for discharge under the EDP. The commander cited drugs and alcohol as the contributing factors for which he had been referred to a rehabilitation program. His abuse of alcohol had gotten so extensive that his pass privileges were pulled. His duty performance had been equally poor and this was the basis for recommending termination of his military service under the provisions of the EDP. 6. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. Subsequent to counseling, the applicant chose to voluntarily consent to the discharge and elected to submit a statement on his own behalf. He was specifically counseled regarding the substantial prejudice he could encounter in civilian life based on receiving a general characterization of service. 7. In his personal statement the applicant explained that he thought he had been doing better since the last NJP and asked for a second chance. He reported that he had referred himself to the rehabilitation program and he wasn't being given a fair chance to demonstrate a change since his enrollment. 8. The applicant waived a separation physical examination. 9. The battalion commander approved the discharge action and accordingly, the applicant was issued a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31, on 6 August 1982. He had served on active duty for 10 months and 2 days. REFERENCES: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-31 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel under the EDP. The EDP provided for the separation of Soldiers who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions: poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. Separation under this chapter was voluntary, required the consent of the Soldier and time in service of at least 6 months but not more than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment. Soldiers discharged under this chapter could be given an honorable or general discharge. 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 available evidence shows the applicant displayed a lack of discipline, poor attitude, an inability or unwillingness to adapt to military standards, and failed to demonstrate promotion potential. Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation action against him under the EDP. 2. Both the company commander's notification and the applicant's statement in his own behalf identified alcohol abuse as a problem for him; however, the company commander made it clear that the real basis for the separation action was the applicant's duty performance. 3. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no evidence of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000527 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000527 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2