ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 March 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190004398 APPLICANT REQUESTS: His 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), dated1 February 2019 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 put himself into the Army treatment program due to alcoholism. He then "got out" because of failure to get control of his drinking. According to the regulation, he was supposed to automatically get an honorable discharge. He later found out that he is bipolar and was most likely drinking to self- medicate. Other than his drinking, he was a very good Soldier. He "mixed" physical training and exercise during basic training and he was great at his job. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 May 1986. 4. The applicant was counseled on four separate occasion between 15 May 1987 and 6 July 1988, for six incidents of missing formation. 5. The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 30 July 1987, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for: * conspiring with another Soldier to commit larceny of some value, the property of the U.S. Government, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy, falsify a DA Form 428 (Application for Identification Card) and a DD Form 2A (United States Uniformed Services Privilege and Identification Card) * with intent to deceive, signing a DA Form 428 and a DD Form 2A knowing that his date of birth was false * wrongfully giving another Soldier $10.00 for a falsified DD Form 2A 6. The applicant accepted NJP on or about 14 April 1988, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for willfully disobeying a lawful order, on or about 30 March 1988, and for failing to go to his appointed place of duty, on or about 4 April 1988. 7. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form) to the applicant's commander, dated 5 July 1988, shows that the applicant was referred to the Community Counseling Center, evaluated and enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Track II Program on 10 April 1988. a. The diagnosis of alcohol dependence was medically confirmed by the by the clinical consultant of the ADAPCP on 25 March 1988. The treatment plan established included: (1) total abstinence from all mood altering substances, (2) attendance of daily Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings for 90 days, (3) weekly attendance of out- patient group therapy sessions, and (4) random urinalysis and breath analysis. b. The applicant was resistant toward treatment and indicted that he did not feel the need for treatment. He did not attend AA meetings as required and never accepted that he had a serious problem with alcohol. On 22 June 1988, he went to the Community Counseling Center after the regular group session. He expressed that he drank alcohol on multiple occasions while he was on leave in his hometown and had not attended AA meetings. When questioned why he did not attend the regular group session that day, he acknowledged that he drank alcohol the previous night and felt guilty. He requested Antabuse to help him stop drinking. An appointment was made with the Clinical Consultant but the applicant did not keep that appointment. c. On 29 June 1988, the applicant admitted in the group therapy session that he had not attended AA daily. He revealed that he did smoke illegal drugs while he was on leave and he thought it would be better if he were separated from the Army. d. The applicant had indicated by his actions of noncompliance with treatment that he was not willing to address his alcohol/drug abuse at that time. It was recommended that he be declared a rehabilitation failure and separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9. 8. The applicant went absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 30 August 1988 and remained absent until he surrendered to military authorities on or about 31 August 1988. 9. The applicant's commander notified the applicant that actions were being initiated to separate him from the service for alcohol or drug rehabilitation failure, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9. His commander stated he was recommending that his service be characterized as honorable. 10. The applicant consulted with counsel on 2 August 1988. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and he made an election to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he did not contest the fact that he was guilty; however, he was requesting that his Chapter 9 discharge be effective 8 November 1988 for the following reasons: a. When he first entered into the Army, he invested $100.00 a month for 12 months into the GI Bill Fund so that he could further his education, and 30 months of active duty service was the minimum time required to be eligible for the privilege. If his discharge became effective prior to 8 November 1988, he would not only lose the $1200.00 he contributed of his own salary but also any benefits to which he was entitled. b. He realized he had a problem with alcohol and he was trying hard to abstain from using alcohol and all other substances. He realized he had ruined his military career, but it did not have to ruin the rest of his life. The GI Bill would be a great importance in continuing to restore his life and to better himself and more importantly give him a better education so that he could help better support his son financially. In spite of his personal problems, he had been an asset to his branch and he contributed admirably to the overall Soldier support mission of his unit. 11. The applicant's commander formally recommended his separation from service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of drug rehabilitation failure. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 25 August 1988 and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate. 12. The applicant was discharged on 7 September 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, due to drug rehabilitation failure. He completed 2 years, 3 months, and 29 days of net active service this period and his service was characterized as under honorable condition (general). 13. Army Regulation 635-200, in affect at that time, set forth the policies, standards, and procedures to insure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of enlisted members for a variety of reasons. 14. The Board should consider the applicant's 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. 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 found insufficient evidence of error, injustice, or inequity; the applicant had no wartime service, no meritorious personal awards and insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances for the misconduct. The Board found limited evidence of rehabilitation or post-service honorable conduct that might have mitigated the discharge characterization that resulted from his misconduct. The Board agreed that the applicant’s discharge characterization as reflected on his DD Form 214 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: 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. X CHAIRPERSON 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 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 HD. 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//