ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  31 May 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170001148


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  

*	his under honorable conditions (general) discharge be upgraded to an honorable 
discharge
*	his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be 
amended to reflect a different, presumably more favorable narrative reason for 
separation

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge)
*	VA Form 20-572 (Request for Change of Address/ Cancellation of Direct 
Deposit)

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant stated it has been 34 years since his discharge and he believes he 
has met all the qualifications as a Veteran.  The laws have changed for getting public 
assistance and his DD Form 214 has to say that the discharge is honorable.  He is 
disabled now due to a work injury and in need of public assistance so he is requesting 
an upgraded discharge.  He stated he has participated in counseling and working 
towards becoming a counselor in addictions.  He has not taken drugs or had alcohol in 
many years and his new career is depended on an upgrade of his DD Form 214.  He 
would like to us his Montgomery GI Bill for the required counselor schooling.

3.  A review of the applicant’s service record shows the following:

a.	He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 May 1979.

   b.  He accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15 on 7 June 1982, for 
operating a vehicle while drunk and his punishment included reduction in rank, a fine 
and 10 days confinement.

	c.  By memorandum from the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control 
program (ADAPCP) Counselor, dated 28 March 1983, subject: ADAPCP Rehabilitation 
Assessment, the applicant's commander was notified that the applicant was unable to 
successfully complete the ADAPCP and should be determined a rehabilitative failure 
and separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9.  

	d.  The applicant’s commander in consultation with, and upon the recommendation 
of the Alcohol/ Drug Abuse prevention control program (ADAPCP) staff, declared the 
applicant a rehabilitation failure by showing a chronological history of alcohol abuse:

*	On 16 May 82, operated a vehicle while drunk; field grade Article 15
reduction, fine, 10 days confinement.
*	On 14 June 1982, applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP program.
*	On 24 March 1983, in consultation with his counselor, the applicant 
admittedly told his counselor he was not going to stop drinking.
*	On 27 March 1983, the applicant was involved in an altercation with a black 
Soldier using ethnics’ names, provoking a disturbance due to alcohol.

	e.  On 4 April 1983, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was 
initiating actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 
(Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9, paragraph 9-2a (1) for alcohol 
abuse and rehabilitation failure.  

	f.  On 4 April 1983, the applicant acknowledged the notification with his signature.  
He further acknowledged that he understood the actions being taken against him and 
elected consultation with and representation by military legal counsel.  

	g.  He was advised that he could submit any statements he desired in his own 
behalf.  His election shows he submitted a statement in his behalf.   

	h.  He acknowledged he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial 
prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge.  Having been advised of his 
rights of his contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to him and the 
effects of a waiver of his right, he made the choice in the foregoing statement.  

	i.  The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation 
from service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse 
rehabilitation failure.

	j.  On 8 April 1983, the separation authority approved the recommended discharge 
and ordered the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

	k.  On 20 April 1983, the applicant was discharged.  His DD Form 214 show she was 
discharged in accordance with chapter 9 of AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol abuse – 
rehabilitative failure, and he was issued an under honorable conditions characterization 
of service. 

4.  AR 635-200 authorized the discharge of Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug 
abuse.  A member who has been referred to 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.

5.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and character references in accordance with the published equity, 
injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined there is 
insufficient evidence to grant relief.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully 
considered.  The Board applied Department of Defense standards of liberal 
consideration to the complete evidentiary record and did not find any evidence of error, 
injustice, or inequity.  He did not provide character witness statements or evidence of 
post-service achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the record, the Board 
found no error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the characterization 
of service and agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization was warranted as 
a result of the misconduct.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	  
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.



REFERENCES:

1.  (Optional as applicable.)  Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications 
for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the 
interest of justice to do so.

2.  AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), sets forth the basic authority 
for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

   a.	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.

   b.	Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under 
honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is 
satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  

   c.	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 
Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (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.  However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted-use 
information was used.

3.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence.  BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  This guidance does not mandate 
relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their 
equitable relief authority.  In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, 
injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, 
external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, 
mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a 
relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment.  Changes to the 
narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely 
on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, 
retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that 
might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or 
had the upgraded service characterization.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170001148

4

1