IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006881 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, in effect, correction of her military records by showing on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she: a. was advanced in rank and pay grade; b. completed her active duty obligation; c. was separated under a different reason and authority; and d. received a different reenlistment eligibility (RE) code. 2. The applicant states: a. All of her discharges were honorable. She was never advised of her rights nor was she afforded the right to counsel. She was ordered to sign papers without the opportunity to review or understand them. She self-referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), which she completed. She did well until she went back to the unit with Captain (CPT) M. CPT M never gave her an option of any other treatment programs. b. The lieutenant (LT) referred to in nonjudicial punishments (NJPs) was clearly a misunderstanding. He had never identified himself. He could have been the maintenance man for all that matter. She met with the LT after finding out he was an officer and apologized profusely. He was the person who informed her that CPT M wanted her out in the worst way. In fact, CPT M was upset with the LT because he didn't want to file charges. She never had a positive result for drugs although CPT M had her tested weekly. So, the statement in Part VI(b) is very incorrect in the Board's decision. If it was drugs, she is asking for any proof that she was a user. c. Also, upon arriving in Germany she should have been promoted. She had enough time in. The sergeant continually passed her over for no reason. He was promoting people who had just completed advanced individual training. The Board should ask themselves why, after all the time she served with no blemishes on her record whatsoever, she was not promoted. d. She realizes it has been nearly 30 years since her discharge. CPT M completed his mission on getting her out of the military. Had she known then what she knows now she would have brought charges against CPT M for harassment. He was an officer and should have acted as such. CPT M was replaced by CPT S. If there was any way to get in touch with CPT S, he would have a different story to tell the Board about CPT M. CPT S wanted to tear up the discharge papers. He said they could work it out. CPT M caused her to lose her benefits. She would have been entitled to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits and VA loans, as well as completing her career goals in the military. e. She realizes her actions at times were less than what was expected of a Soldier, but she really was never given a chance. In her line of work she sees injustices every day. The sad part of it is that no one listens. f. She realizes the Board must believe the officer’s side of this matter. Even though it has been about 30 years, she still stands by what she says happened. She is requesting that the Board change her records to indicate she fulfilled her active duty military obligation. She was continually harassed, not to mention humiliated, by CPT M. This was the only time in her military service that she ran into problems, and only with one person. She feels she served her military obligation. She was a junior in high when she joined. She was excited. She did well and had no problems until meeting CPT M. g. She asks the Board consider the possibility that what CPT M wrote down was not completely true. If she had a disagreement with Staff Sergeant M, it was his word against hers. He was right on CPT M’s coat tails. It was never mentioned in any records that CPT M had one of his Soldiers corner her in the bathroom and offer her cocaine. She never did drugs in the military or in civilian life. h. She respects the Board's decisions, but does not respect the fact that CPT M harassed her to the point of break down and got away with it. She realizes her military days are long past, but she was served an injustice by CPT M which the Board should address. She has tried desperately to have her RE code changed in order to rectify her record and to show that she really would have been a good Soldier. She really wants entitlement to VA benefits. 3. The applicant provides: * Member copy 4 of the voided version of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Honorable Discharge 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. On or about 16 January 1981, the applicant entered active duty for training (ADT) as a member of the Army National Guard (ARNG). She completed the basic combat training course and was returned to her ARNG unit on or about 15 March 1981. 3. On or about 23 August 1982, the applicant entered ADT as a member of the ARNG and was enrolled in advanced individual training. She completed training as a personnel records specialist and was returned to her ARNG unit on or about 23 October 1982. 4. A DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows that the applicant received the following advancements while serving in the ARNG: * Private (PV2): 27 December 1981 * Private First Class (PFC): 6 January 1983 * Specialist Four (SP4): 25 November 1983 5. On 27 November 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for duty as a personnel records specialist beginning in the rank of private, pay grade E-2. She was subsequently assigned for duty with the 369th Personnel Service Company located in Germany. 6. On 12 August 1986, the Clinical Director, ADAPCP Rehabilitation Activities, stated that the applicant: a. was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 21 January 1986 as a self-referral for alcohol abuse; b. was enrolled in Track II rehabilitation and participated in four sessions of individual counseling and Antabuse therapy; c. progressed satisfactorily during the first 90 days of treatment and requested in-patient treatment to correct her long term problem with alcohol abuse; d. was admitted to the Rehabilitation Treatment Facility on 3 March and completed the inpatient treatment on 26 April 1986; and e. completed six follow-up treatment sessions and appeared to progress satisfactorily until her commander reported another alcohol related incident indicating that her potential for successful rehabilitation was poor. 7. On or about 20 August 1986, the applicant was notified by CPT S, the Officer-in-Charge of the Kirchgoens Composite Team, that he was initiating action to discharge her from the U.S. Army due to several incidents of misconduct which were directly attributed to her abuse of alcohol. CPT S also stated in this notification that the applicant had been a self-referral to ADAPCP. 8. On 20 August 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification discussed in the preceding paragraph and indicated her desire to have legal counsel and to not submit a statement on her own behalf. She further stated that she wanted copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority and wanted to request treatment in a VA medical center. 9. On 20 August 1986, CPT S recommended the applicant’s discharge due to rehabilitation failure. 10. At a mental status evaluation on or about 22 August 1986, the applicant's behavior was found to be normal. She was fully alert and oriented and displayed an anxious mood. Her thinking process was clear, her thought content was normal and her memory was good. There was no significant mental illness. The applicant was mentally responsible. She was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and capable of participating in the separation processing. She appeared slightly intoxicated when evaluated. It was recommended that she receive close supervision and that an administrative discharge be expedited in the best interests of the service. Her likelihood of future acting out and behavior problems appeared to be high in view of her stated intention to continue such behavior until she was discharged. 11. On or about 29 August 1986, the applicant was advised by legal counsel as to her rights concerning her administrative discharge. 12. On 3 September 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for disrespectful behavior towards a commissioned officer on 18 July 1986 and for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer on 22 August 1986. Her punishment included a reduction to private, pay grade E-1. 13. On 24 September 1986, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that she be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 14. The applicant was discharged on 15 October 1986. She completed 10 months and 19 days of creditable active duty service during this period. Her DD Form 214, as issued at the time, shows she received a separation program designator (SPD) of JPD and an RE code 3, 3C. Her service was characterized as under honorable conditions. 15. On 21 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), at a formal hearing, considered the applicant’s request for an upgrade of her characterization and a change of the reason for her separation. The applicant testified and was represented by counsel. The ADRB determined that the applicant’s characterization was improper and unanimously voted to upgrade it to honorable. However, it found the reason for her separation to be equitable and unanimously voted to not change it. 16. The applicant was reissued a DD Form 214 showing her characterization as honorable. The SPD remained as JPD. Her RE code of 3 remained. 17. Army Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), as then in effect, provided in chapter 7 the criteria for eligibility for advancement to private first class. Such advancement was not mandatory. Unit commanders normally could advance Soldiers without constraint who qualified without waiver of time in grade (TIG) or time in service (TIS). Advancement to PFC without waiver required 12 months TIS and 4 months TIG. 18. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, as then in effect, was the authority and outlined the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who had been referred to ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse could be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there was a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts were no longer practical. At the time of the applicant’s separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. However, an honorable discharge was required if restricted use information was used. 19. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code JPD was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes RE code 3 as the proper RE code to assign to Soldiers separated for this reason. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that her DD Form 214 should be corrected by showing she was advanced in rank and pay grade; had completed her active duty obligation; was separated under a different reason and authority; and received a different RE code. 2. The ADRB reviewed the applicant's discharge in 1999 and determined that the characterization was too harsh, most likely due to the use of restricted information about her self-referral to the ADAPCP program. At the same time, it did not find fault with the original reason for her discharge. Accordingly, the ADRB upgraded her characterization to honorable but made no other changes to her record. 3. The RE Code 3 establishing her ineligibility for enlistment/reenlistment without a waiver was correctly entered on her separation document in accordance with governing regulations. There is no evidence of error or injustice. 4. There is no apparent basis for removal or waiver of the applicant’s disqualification that established the reason for her discharge. The reason and authority are correct and appropriate as stated on her DD Form 214. 5. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support her contention that she was improperly denied advancement to PFC. Advancement to PFC was not mandatory and required 12 months in the Regular Army without waiver. She was only on active duty for 10 months and 19 days. It is doubtful that the commander would have favorably considered a waiver for her given her disciplinary record. 6. The applicant’s contention that her record should be changed to show she completed her active duty obligation for the purpose of receiving VA benefits is noted and understood. However, the record is correct as constituted. The Board does not generally recommend changes to a correctly constituted record for the sole purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits. 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) AR20140008458 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006881 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1