ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	I
	BOARD DATE:  4 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180016398


APPLICANT REQUESTS:   The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable 
conditions (general) discharge to honorable.  

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

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:

     a.  He has been wanting to upgrade his discharge for a longtime.  An upgrade of his 
discharge would help his self-respect.  He was 17 years old when he enlisted and was 
doing well in the Army until he got involved with some older guys, which resulted in him 
being discharged.

     b.  He knows his age played a big role in his actions and he still takes full 
responsibility.  He is 54 years old and he really would like his discharge to be upgraded 
to an honorable.  He feels that he needs this for dignity and self-respect.  Please give 
him a chance to right this wrong.           

3.  On 14 April 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 17.  He completed 
training requirements and was awarded his military occupational specialty.        

4.  The applicant received non-judicial punishment (NJP) from 18 June to 23 July 1982 
on 2 occasions for:

*	failing to be at his appointed place of duty
*	violating a lawful general regulation
*	violating a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer
*	violating a lawful command from a superior commission officer

5.  On 29 July 1982, the applicant was admitted to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  He participated in a treatment program of 
awareness education, group and individual therapy.  His progress was evaluated to be 
unsatisfactory and he was considered to be a rehabilitation failure.  The ADAPCP officer 
concurred with the recommendation.

6.  On 7 October 1982, the applicant was arrested and charged for speeding and 
attempting to elude police.  He was later found guilty and fined.

7.  On 14 October 1982, he was medically cleared for administrative separation.

8.  On 13 December 1982, the applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to 
initiate separation actions against him under the provisions of chapter 9, Army 
Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), based on him being 
declared a rehabilitation failure by ADAPCP.  The applicant had tested positive for 
marijuana; was picked up for possession of marijuana; received NJP for alcohol related 
incidents; and civil authorities had found him guilty of alcohol related charges.  

     a.  His commander advised him of his available rights, to include his right to consult 
with counsel.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification 
memorandum. 

     b.  The applicant indicated he did not desire to be appointed legal counsel and he 
would not submit statements in his own behalf.  He also declined treatment at a 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center.  
     c.  His chain of command recommended he be eliminated from further military 
service. 
     d.  The appropriate separation authority approved the separation with a general, 
under honorable conditions characterization of service.  He also stated required 
rehabilitative efforts had been made.  Further rehabilitative efforts were not practical, 
rendering the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  
9.  On 28 December 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  He completed 1 
year, 8 months, and 15 days of net active service.  He was not awarded a personal 
decoration.  
10.  The record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to 
have jeopardized the applicant’s rights. 
11.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, 
provides that a member who has been referred to the 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 is normally characterized as 
honorable or general under honorable conditions.
12.  The Board notes that the applicant was 17 years of age when he enlisted in the 
Army, had satisfactorily completed training requirements and had served for over 1 year 
before any negative incidents are documented.  His completion of training requirements 
and satisfactory performance demonstrated his capacity to serve and showed that he 
was neither too young nor immature.  

13.  In reaching its determination, the Board should consider the applicant's petition, his 
service record, and his statement in light of the published Department of Defense 
guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency.                                         
  
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 post-service 
achievements for the Board to consider.  Based upon the record, the Board 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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):  Not Applicable

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.  Army Regulation 15–185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes 
the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  
Paragraph 2-9 states that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the 
presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an 
error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  
3.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth 
the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Prevention and Control Program 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 is normally characterized as honorable or general under 
honorable conditions.

     a.  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.  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.

4.  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.  

     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, 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.  

     b.  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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180016398
	
3

1