ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Record of Proceedings


IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE:  30 May 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190001951

APPLICANT REQUESTS: His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 18 December 2018

FACTS:

1.	The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (ABCMR) 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 he served honorably for 6 years. He enlisted right after turning 
17 years old. He developed a drinking problem towards the end that resulted in poor 
behavioral choices; however, he served honorably and he deserves an honorable 
discharge.

3.	The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 June 1978, at 17 years of age. He 
reenlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 1980.

4.	The applicant was assigned for overseas duty in the Federal Republic of Germany. 
He arrived in Germany on 14 September 1981.

5.	The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 
15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on the following dates for the 
indicated infractions:

*	on 10 March 1982, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place 
of duty, to wit:  physical training (PT) formation, on or about 8 March 1982
*	on 9 July 1982, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of 
duty, to wit:  morning formation, on or about 21 June 1982


6.	A Record of Informal Counseling Session shows that the applicant was counseled on 
or about 4 August 1982, for cashing checks with the Army and Air Force Exchange 
Service (AAFES) that were dishonored when presented to the bank.

7.	The applicant accepted NJP on 17 November 1983, under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the UCMJ, for being drunk and disorderly, on or about 15 October 1983.

8.	On a DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 4 January 1984, the applicant's 
immediate supervisor was provided a synopsis of the applicant's Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Rehabilitation Activities.  It states:

   a.	The applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP Tract II Program on 4 November 
1983, in response to an alcohol related incident recorded on a military police blotter.

   b.	The applicant participated in three individual counseling sessions, in a 
rehabilitation team meeting, and 12 hours of drug and alcohol education class 
presentations.

   c.	During rehabilitation, the applicant remained unconvinced that alcohol was a 
problem.

   d.	On 25 December 1983, the applicant was involved in still another alcohol related 
incident that prompted UCMJ actions.

e.	The applicant's potential for successful rehabilitation was poor.

9.	The applicant accepted NJP on or about 15 January 1984, under the provisions of 
Article 15 of the UCMJ, for willfully damaging military property of the U.S. and for being 
drunk and disorderly in station, on or about 25 December 1983.

10.	The applicant was notified on 20 January 1984 that he was being recommended for 
discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – 
Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9, based on his failure to respond to alcohol abuse 
rehabilitative efforts as shown by his drunk and disorderly conduct on 25 December 
1983.

11.	The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 20 January 1984. He 
consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he had been informed on the type of 
discharge he may receive and its possible affects. He elected to submit a statement in 
his own behalf in which he contended:

   a.	His performance warranted the issuance of an honorable discharge because, 
although he had some disciplinary problems, he served above and beyond the call of 
duty. He earned the rank of sergeant and was awarded the distinguished trooper award 
and the Army Good Conduct Medal.
   


   b.	He voluntarily served in a supply position for approximately nine months, even 
through it was not his military occupational specialty (MOS). He also served as an 
operations chief, assistant flash chief, assistant supply sergeant, and the battery key 
and lock custodian. He has always contributed much to the successful accomplishment 
of the battery mission.

   c.	He continued to strive for excellence out of himself, his peers, and his 
subordinates. He bettered himself by attending numerous service schools including the 
Noncommissioned Officers Academy, where he graduated on the commandant's list. 
On his last Enlisted Evaluation Report he achieved a perfect score of 125 points.

   d.	There were extenuating circumstances surrounding his incidents of misconduct in 
the way of marital problems. He was not denying or trying to justify his misconduct; 
however, he was punished for it.  He was merely trying to show how he had been a 
good Soldier and he contributed enough to the Army to hopefully qualify for an 
honorable discharge.

12.	The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of rehabilitation 
failure.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
31 January 1984 and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

13.	The applicant departed Germany enroute to the United States on 6 February 1984.

14.	The applicant was discharged on 10 February 1984, under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, due to drug abuse and rehabilitation failure. He 
completed 5 years, 7 months, and 14 days of net active service this period and his 
service was characterized as under honorable condition (general).

15.	Army Regulation 635-200 provides the authority for separation of enlisted 
personnel upon expiration of term of service; the authority and general provisions 
governing the separation of enlisted personnel prior to expiration of term of service; and 
the criteria governing the issuance of Honorable, General, and Under Other Than 
Honorable Condition Discharge Certificates.

16.	The Board should consider the applicant's provided statement 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, other than the administrative notes found by the 
analyst of record. The board applied Office of the Secretary of Defense standards of 
liberal consideration and clemency to the complete evidentiary record, including the 
applicant’s statement and did not find evidence of error, injustice, or inequity; although 
the applicant had a period of creditable honorable service (noted in administrative notes 
below the signature block), there was insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances 
for the misconduct. Neither did the Board find sufficient evidence of post-service 
honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization. The Board 
agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization is appropriate.
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:

Other than the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the 
signature), the Board determined 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 otherwise 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):

A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 10 February 1984, is missing 
important entries that affect his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend 
the DD Form 214 by adding the following entries to item 18 (Remarks):
*	SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE
*	CONTINUOUS HONORABLE ACTIVE SERVICE FROM 780627 UNTIL 801229




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. 
A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason 
for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

   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. 
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.

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//