ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  17 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20170014852


APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty), period ending 16 April 1987
* U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Healthcare Letter, dated 7 April 2017

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 states, in effect,

	a.  The incident related to his discharge occurred in his barracks.  He states he was off duty, watching television in the recreation room and fell asleep.  The applicant states he was not drinking as he was accused by his duty officer:  He reiterates he was off duty and the alleged incident did not occur.

	b.  He had previously completed an alcohol abuse rehabilitation program and has not drank recreationally for many years, and states nor does he intend to.  He shares it’s been approximately 30 years since the alleged incident.  He states he does not drink, is a wiser person, and requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable.

	c.  The applicant referenced the letter he received from the DVA that states he was granted a service connected,10% disability rating.


3.  The applicant provides:

	a.  A copy of his DD Form 214 showing in:

* Item 24 (Character of Service), is Under Honorable Conditions (General)
* Item 25 (Separation Authority), he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of AR 635-200
* Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), was due to Alcohol Abuse-Rehabilitation Failure

	b.  A copy of his DVA Healthcare Letter, indicating the applicant has at least a 10% service-connected disability and is now enrolled in a different priority group for care.

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

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 August 1984.

	b.  The applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 on/for

* on 4 December 1985, for disrespect to a non-commissioned officer
* on 17 February 1987, for operating a vehicle while intoxicated; his punishment consisted in part of a reduction in rank to private first class/E-3

	c.  DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 5 March 1987, addressed to the applicant’s company commander from the community counseling center, Mainz, Germany, provides the applicant was enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), Track II on 19 February 1986, by his commander, due to an alcohol related incident.  The applicant completed the ADAPCP program, but was reported to continue consuming alcoholic beverages in a manner which contributed to further command involvement.

	d.  On 6 March 1987, the applicant was given a general officer letter of reprimand for driving a vehicle while intoxicated.  Within the letter, he was offered the opportunity to submit a statement and evidence on his behalf.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter on 9 March 1987 and did not elect to make a statement or provide evidence on his behalf.

	e.  On 24 March 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of the intent to separate him under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  His commander specified in the notification, the applicant was enrolled in ASAP initially 19 February 1986, successfully completed the program, but later refused to submit a breathalyzer and also missed extra duty due to an alcohol related incident.  Additionally, his commander referenced the applicant had a history of disciplinary problems related to alcohol abuse, thereby creating a disruptive influence in the unit.  His commander informed him of his rights, advised him to consult with counsel, and that he recommended the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.

	f.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and advisement of his rights on 24 March 1987.  He stated he had been advised by his consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for ADAPCP failure (alcohol), under chapter 9 of AR 635-200, and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  The applicant did not provide a statement on his behalf, but requested treatment in a DVA medical center.  The applicant also acknowledged that he understood that he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

	g.  On 25 March 1987, the applicant’s immediate commander recommended him for separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9.  He recommended the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.

	h.  On 25 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and ordered he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 16 April 1987.

	i.  His DD Form 214 show he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of AR 635-200 due to alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure and received an under honorable conditions (general).  He completed 2 years, 8 months, and 16 days with no lost time.  His DD Form 214 also shows he was awarded or authorized:

* Army Service Ribbon
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar
* Expert Marksmanship Badge with Grenade Bar

5.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for review of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

6.  By regulation (AR 635-200), a member who has been referred to the ADAPCP for alcohol or 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.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.


7.  The Board should consider the applicant’s submission in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After review of the application and all evidence, the Board determined relief is not warranted.  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.  He was discharged after failing to rehabilitate and was provided an Under Honorable Conditions (General) characterization of service.  The Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

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.  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, in effect at the time, provides,

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is given when the quality of 
the Soldier's service has generally met standards of acceptable conduct and duty performance.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7b provides that 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.  Paragraph 9-2 provides, a member who has been referred to the ADAPCP 
for alcohol or 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.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process.

3.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence.  Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records may grant clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.

   a.  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 on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official government acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment.

	b.  Changes to the narrative reason for the 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170014852


4


1