ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 April 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190000417


APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of the previous Army Board for Correction of 
Military Records (ABCMR) decision promulgated in Docket Number AR20130009869 on 
6 February 2014.  Specifically, she requests her under honorable conditions (general) 
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.   

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from The Armed Forces 
of The United States)   

FACTS:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records that were summarized in the 
previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number 
AR20130009869 on 6 February 2014.

2.  As a new argument, the applicant states it's been about 30 years since her 
discharge.  Consequently, she would like her discharge upgraded to honorable.  Since 
her discharge, she has changed her life.  She has earned her Masters Degree and has 
been a teacher for 30 years.  She has been through alcohol rehabilitation programs with 
continued success, and in effect, she has been sober for 30 years.       

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 September 1979.  

4.  She reenlisted in the Regular Army on 29 June 1983.  She was promoted to the 
rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 on 1 August 1983.  She reenlisted again on 24 April 1987.

5.  Between the applicant's date of enlistment and the date of her second reenlistment, 
she was awarded or authorized the Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct 
Medal (2nd Award), Non-commission Officer Professional Development Ribbon, and the 
Overseas Service Ribbon with Numeral 2. 

6.  The applicant was command referred into the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention 
and Control Program (ADAPCP).  She was evaluated on 13 August 1987 because of 
phencyclidine and cocaine abuse.

7.  In a memorandum, dated 24 November 1987, an ADAPCP staff member determined 
the applicant was a rehabilitation failure.  The administrative officer who signed the 
memorandum stated the applicant was to be processed for separation under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), 
Chapter 9.   

8.  The applicant's company commander formally notified her on 1 December 1987 of 
the initiation of separation actions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 9, based on her failure to successfully engage in and complete the drug abuse 
rehabilitation program as directed by the ADAPCP officer.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged the basis for the 
contemplated action to separate her for failure to successfully engage in and complete 
the drug abuse rehabilitation program under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
Chapter 9, and its effects; of the rights available to her; and of the effect of any action 
taken by her in waiving her rights. She also:

*	waived consideration of her case by, and personal appearance before, an 
administrative separation board
*	elected not to submit statements in her own behalf
*	acknowledged her understanding that she could expect to encounter substantial 
prejudice in civilian life if she received a general discharge

10.  The applicant's commander formally recommended her separation under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of drug abuse 
rehabilitation failure.  The separation authority approved the recommendation on  
21 December 1987 to discharge the applicant and directed she receive a General 
Discharge Certificate.

11.  The applicant was discharged on 5 January 1988.  Her DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows her service was 
characterized as under honorable conditions.  This form also shows she was credited 
with completing 8 years, 3 months, and 11 days of active service this period.

12.  The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, and 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.  She did not provide character witness statements or evidence of 
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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket 
Number AR20130009869 on 6 February 2014.


	  
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):

A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214, for the period ending 
5 January 1988, is missing important entries that affect her eligibility for post-service 
benefits.  As a result, amend item 18 (Remarks) of the DD Form 214 by adding: 

*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 790925 – 870423 

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 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 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel.

	a.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that 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 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.  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 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 under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is 
in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. 
 
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 regardless of the court-martial 
forum.  However, the guidance applies to more than 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 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)	 AR20190000417

5

1