IN THE CASE OF: 

BOARD DATE:  13 April 2022

DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20210015288


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  His under honorable conditions (general) discharge be 
upgraded to an honorable discharge, and correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show a different, presumably more favorable, 
narrative reason for separation.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

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 never tested positive for any controlled substances nor was 
he ever under the influence of alcohol in uniform.  After an off base altercation, he was 
reprimanded and blindly convinced by a superior to voluntarily seek assistance.  He 
participated openly in the program but was later discharged for doing so.  His 
commanders saw it as an inconvenience and his discharge was a deterrent to other 
members.  Our understanding of alcohol abuse has greatly improved since that time 
and a similar situation would be handled differently today.

3.  The applicant’s DD Form 149 notes other mental health issues and reprisal, are 
related to his request as contributing and mitigating factors in the circumstances that 
resulted in his separation.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 October 1987, for a period of 
2 years.

5.  The applicant was formally counseled on 5 June 1989 for missing two formations 
and a parade.  He was placed on a probationary period for the remainder of the month.

6.  By memorandum from the Clinical Director, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and 
Control Program (ADAPCP), dated 13 July 1989, the applicant’s commander was 
notified that the applicant, was determined to be a rehabilitation failure.  The basis for 
this action was:
*	he had missed his first group therapy session on 19 June 1989
*	failed to turn in his homework assignment at the 16 June 1989 session
*	admitted to drug use over the 4 July weekend and subsequent to then
*	continued to minimize the serious of his problem or the need to maintain 
abstinence from all mood-altering drugs for effective treatment

7.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 24 July 1989, shows 
the applicant was psychologically cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate 
by command.

8.  The applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant on 25 July 1989 that he 
was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation  
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9, for drug abuse.

9.  The applicant consulted with counsel on 26 July 1989 and was advised of the basis 
for the contemplated actions to separate him and of the rights available to him.  He 
further acknowledged his understanding and elected not to submit a statement in his 
own behalf.

10.  The applicant's commander formally recommended the applicant's separation from 
service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason of drug 
rehabilitation failure.  The separation authority approved the recommended discharge 
on 25 July 1989 and directed that the applicant be issued a DD Form 257A (General 
Discharge Certificate).

11.  The applicant was discharged on 28 August 1989.  His DD Form 214 confirms he 
was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, by reason 
of alcohol abuse.  He was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days of net active 
service this period.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions 
(general).

12.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, his 
arguments and assertions, and his service record in accordance with the published 
equity, injustice, or clemency guidance.

13. MEDICAL REVIEW:

The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting discharge upgrade contending that 
the misconduct leading to his Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was due 
to mental health issues that he developed while on active duty.
    a.  The Agency psychologist was asked by the ABCMR to review this request. 
Documentation reviewed includes the applicant’s completed DD149 and supporting 
documentation and his military separation packet. The VA electronic medical record, 
Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) was also reviewed. The military electronic medical record 
(AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during his time in service. No hard copy 
military medical records or civilian medical documentation was provided for review.  
 
    b.  Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the 
Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 14 Nov 1986 and subsequently switched to 
the Regular Army on 20 Oct 1987. During his service, he was awarded the Army 
Achievement Medal and Army Service Ribbon.  His job assignment was Combat 
Crewman.  
 
    c.  He received a General Counseling Form which noted, “On 5 Jan 89 you failed to 
make 2 Btry formations and missed a General change of Command Parade.” A 
Memorandum of Record, dated 13 Jul 1989 indicated, “was enrolled in the Alcohol and 
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), Track II program on 16 Jul 
1989, as a self-referral because of cannabis and alcohol abuse, and recent past misuse 
of other mood altering substances…Soldier also admitted to his chain of command that 
he had used various drugs over the 4 Jul weekend and subsequent to then…it has been 
determined that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical rendering the rehabilitation 
a failure. It is recommended that soldiers be processed for separation under Chapter 9, 
AR 635-200.” A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 Jul 1989, made the 
observation of normal behavior and thought content, as well as unremarkable mood. It 
was further noted, “formal psychological evaluation is not indicated at this 
time…psychologically cleared for administrative action.” A Proposed Separation Action 
Under the Provision of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, dated 25 Jul 1989 noted, “am initiating 
this separation action…for Drug Abuse.” He received an Under Honorable Conditions 
(General) discharge on 28 Aug 1989 with DD-214 narrative reason for separation, 
Alcohol Abuse   
 
    d.  The VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) did not indicate any 
service connected disability(s). There was no available data for any medical or 
behavioral health notes, as well as no data on the problem list.    
 
    e.  Based on the available information and in accordance with the Liberal 
Consideration guidance, it is the opinion of the Agency psychologist there is insufficient 
evidence to support the presence of any   behavioral health conditions which led to his 
Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge. Substance abuse or dependence 
does not serve to mitigate for misconduct unless associated with other behavioral health 
conditions. No medical records supporting the presence of significant psychological 
symptoms or diagnoses during his time in service were provided for review. Even so, 
the Agency psychologist will gladly revisit the applicant’s request should he, in the 
future, submit medical documentation of any behavioral health condition(s) related to his 
military service. An upgrade is therefore not recommended at this time. 

BOARD DISCUSSION:
1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of 
service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive 
and standard review based on law, policy and regulation, and published Department of 
Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his 
characterization of service.  Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military 
records and medical review, the Board concurred with the medical opinion finding 
insufficient evidence to support the presence of any behavioral health conditions which 
led to his discharge. Substance abuse or dependence does not serve to mitigate for 
misconduct unless associated with other behavioral health conditions. He was 
discharged for reason of alcohol abuse.  He was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 9 
days of net active service this period 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 to receive an Honorable discharge.

2.  Furthermore, based on the preponderance of evidence the Board determined that 
the narrative reason was not in error or unjust. The Board agreed the burden of proof 
rest on the applicant; however, he did not provide any supporting documentation and 
his medical records has insufficient evidence to support the applicant contentions of a 
behavioral health conditions. Based on this, the Board determined relief was not 
warranted and denied relief.

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):  N/A

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 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides 
the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from 
active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  At the time, 
this regulation prescribed the separation code "JPC" as the appropriate code to assign 
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, 
based on drug abuse rehabilitative failure.  Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross 
Reference Table established RE code "3" as the proper reentry code to assign to 
Soldiers separated under this authority and for this reason.

3.  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.  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 under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status.

4.  The Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and 
Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR), on 3 September 
2014 [Hagel Memorandum], to carefully consider the revised post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors when 
taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged 
under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) and who have been diagnosed with 
PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare 
provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization 
of the applicant's service.

5.  The Acting Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) 
provided clarifying guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 24 February 
2016 [Carson Memorandum].  The memorandum directed the BCM/NRs to waive the 
statute of limitations.  Fairness and equity demand, in cases of such magnitude that a 
Veteran's petition receives full and fair review, even if brought outside of the time limit.  
Similarly, cases considered previously, either by DRBs or BCM/NRs, but without benefit 
of the application of the Supplemental Guidance, shall be, upon petition, granted de 
novo review utilizing the Supplemental Guidance.

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) provided clarifying 
guidance to Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 August 2017 [Kurta 
Memorandum].  The memorandum directed them to give liberal consideration to 
Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole 
or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic 
brain injury (TBI), sexual assault, or sexual harassment.  Standards for review should 
rightly consider the unique nature of these cases and afford each Veteran a reasonable 
opportunity for relief even if the sexual assault or sexual harassment was unreported, or 
the mental health condition was not diagnosed until years later.  Boards are to give 
liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for 
relief is based in whole or in part on those conditions or experiences.  The guidance 
further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the 
conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct 
that led to the discharge.

	a.  Guidance documents are not limited to UOTHC discharge characterizations but 
rather apply to any petition seeking discharge relief including requests to change the 
narrative reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from general to honorable 
characterizations.

	b.  An honorable discharge characterization does not require flawless military 
service.  Many veterans are separated with an honorable characterization despite some 
relatively minor or infrequent misconduct.

	c.  Liberal consideration does not mandate an upgrade.  Relief may be appropriate, 
however, for minor misconduct commonly associated with mental health conditions, 
including PTSD; TBI; or behaviors commonly associated with sexual assault or sexual 
harassment; and some significant misconduct sufficiently justified or outweighed by the 
facts and circumstances.

7.  The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) issued guidance to 
Service DRBs and Service BCM/NRs on 25 July 2018 [Wilkie Memorandum], 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 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//