BOARD DATE: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001341 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 BOARD DATE: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001341 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. BOARD DATE: 13 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160001341 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 discharge characterized as general under honorable conditions to honorable. 2.  He states there was an error and an injustice at the time of his separation which stems from the missed diagnosis of alcoholism. During his tour of duty, the barracks were stocked with vending machines that dispensed beer which promoted a drinking environment. He was unaware of his health condition and, therefore, he ended up drinking more than he intended. His drinking directly contributed to his discipline problems. After being involved in an alcohol-related accident in 1989, one of the conditions of the court order was that he enter into an alcohol treatment program. Since that time, he has not had a drink or used drugs in the past 26 years. He is a contributor to society, well respected among his peers, and has successfully passed a background investigation in order to coach youth bowling. 3.  He provides no additional evidence. 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 14 September 1972. 3.  His disciplinary history includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on five separate occasions for the following offenses: * 1 June 1973 for sleeping on guard duty on 20 May 1973 * 23 July 1973 for being absent from his appointed place of duty on or about 1230 to 1405 hours on 3 July 1973 * 13 November 1973 for being absent from his appointed place of duty on 30 October 1973 * 7 December 1973 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 30 November 1973 * 11 February 1974 for being absent from his appointed place of duty on or about 0715 to 0930 hours on 31 January 1974 4.  On 19 February 1974, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation. The evaluation shows he had no significant mental illness, he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standard of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. There is no mention of the applicant’s alcohol problem. 5.  The applicant's records are void of any evidence that shows he had an alcohol problem and that his disciplinary problems were alcohol related. 6.  On 19 February 1974, the company commander advised the applicant that he was being considered for elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. 7.  On 1 May 1974, the separation approval authority signed the waiver for rehabilitative transfer pertaining to the applicant's elimination proceedings. He directed that a board of officers be convened to determine whether the applicant should be eliminated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13. 8.  The complete discharge packet concerning the applicant's acknowledgement of the separation action and his election of rights are not contained in his available military records. However, his record contains a Board of Proceedings, which shows he appeared before the board with his counsel on 30 May 1974. The board carefully considered the evidence before it and found the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the military service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. The board recommended his discharge because of unfitness with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. 9.  On 27 June 1974, the 9th Infantry Division Adjutant General approved the recommendation of the board. 10.  His DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 9 July 1974, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 with an under honorable conditions (general) characterization of service. He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 26 days of creditable active service during this period. 11.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge 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 13, in effect at the time, established policy and provided procedures and guidance for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be unfit or unsuitable for further military service. It provided for the separation of members involved in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. An undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate. b.  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 argues, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was an alcoholic and he has since turned his life around. There is no evidence in the records that shows the applicant had an alcohol problem during his military career and/or sought counseling to correct this problem while in the military. 2.  The fact that he has been alcohol and drug free for the past 26 years and is a contributor to society is commendable. However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge. 3.  The evidence of record shows the applicant appeared before an administrative board with his counsel. The board found that he was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities. The available evidence confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The record further shows his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. 4.  Based on his record of misconduct, it appears his service did not meet the criteria for an honorable characterization as reflected in Army Regulation  635-200. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001341 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160001341 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2