IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200008030 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to honorable. 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, United States Code, 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 was suffering from chronic alcoholism and was never properly diagnosed. During his service, he was never given the opportunity for alcoholism treatment. He was released from service just a few days from being able to receive benefits. He was sent to psychiatric evaluations and his reporting sergeants reported his mental lapses and drinking problem but he was never given the treatment for alcoholism. While he was out in the field, he was a great Soldier. His problem was he was an alcoholic. This happened when he was 18-20 years old and during his tenure alcohol was freely given to him by sergeants and other Soldiers in his unit even though he was an underage minor. They said to be a real Soldier he needed to learn how to drink. The drinking at the post at Fort Benning, GA led to his blackouts and alcoholism. His problem was he was an alcoholic and the Army never diagnosed his disability and simply let him go even though he was sick. Alcoholism is a disease and recognized as a disease by the American Medical Board. He is simply seeking that he be allowed to have basic benefits as he was released without his disease being properly diagnosed. He is now 52 years old and now has 26 years of continuous sobriety. He was ashamed to discuss this medical condition. 3. The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 15 March 1986 for a period of 8 years in the delayed entry program (DEP). He was discharged from the DEP enlisting in the Regular Army for a period of 2 years on 10 July 1986. The applicant was assigned to Fort Benning, GA on 7 December 1986. 4. A DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) dated 14 January 1987 shows the applicant received an initial counseling to inform him the expectations for soldiers in the unit. He received the following additional counseling: * 31 March 1987, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty and when he arrived, he had an erring in his ear. * 20 April 1987, for absenting himself from his appointed place of duty and he did not make telephonic notification that he would be late * 21 September 1987, a periodic counseling for June/July 1987, he was slow about completing his screening duties, needs improvement in his uniform and was below standards for the aid station section * 22 October 1987, for writing a check on post without sufficient funds to cover his purchase * 29 October 1987, for writing two bad checks to the Fort Benning Exchange * 3 November 1987, for writing a personal check without sufficient funds 5. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 12, UCMJ) shows the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment on 12 November 1987 for wrongfully using tetra-hydro-cannabinol during the period from 18 September 1987 to 28 September 1987. 6. A DA Form 4856 dated 13 November 1987, shows the applicant was counseled concerning his recommendation for administrative separation under chapter 13 of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 and advised he will have a mental and physical evaluation. 7. A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and SF 93 (Report of Medical History), both dated 17 November 1987, show no significate defects. The applicant reported he was in good health. 8. A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) dated 17 November 1987 shows his behavior was normal, he was fully alert and oriented, an unremarkable mood, clear thinking process and content, and good memory. It was determined he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and was mentally responsible, and meets retention requirements. The remarks section states: [The applicant] was seen at Community Mental Health Services at Command request pending chapter discharge. Service member relates history of chronic alcohol abuse and occasional illicit drug use. Soldier holds a 91A MOS, is working out of his MOS and relates dissatisfaction and frustration with that situation. Soldier expressed strong desire for continued service until ETS date. Soldier is enrolled in Drug and Alcohol treatment and will continue treatment. Not prior psychiatric history noted. The problems presented by this soldier do not require treatment through medical channels. Soldier denied perceptual distortions, suicidal/homicidal ideation. Retention in the Army should be based on observed duty performance. Service member is cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. 9. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled on 3 December 1987 concerning him being recommended for discharge under chapter 13, AR 635-200 for repeated acts of misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. 10. On 4 December 1987, the applicant was recommended for discharge for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of paragraph 13-1, chapter 13, AR 635-200. The specific reason for the recommendation was repeated incidents of poor performance. 11. The applicant was notified of the proposed separation on 4 December 1987. He was advised he would receive a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. He was advised of his rights to consult with consulting counsel, submit statements on his own behalf, and obtain copies of separation documents. He was advised he may waive his rights in writing and withdraw any waiver of his right prior to approval of his discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification with his signature. 12. A request for waiver of rehabilitative transfer memorandum dated 4 December 1987, states [the applicant] should not be rehabilitative transferred prior to separation from the US Army. He has established a pattern of unsatisfactory performance, lack of motivation and lack of desire to be a professional soldier. [He] is resisting attempts at rehabilitations and would be a burden to any command to which he is transferred. Separation without additional rehabilitative transfer is in the best interest of the Army. 13. On 8 December 1987, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action for separation for unsatisfactory performance under chapter 13, its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by waiving his rights. He elected to not submit statements on his own behalf. He acknowledged he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life, and he will be ineligible to apply to enlist for a period of 2 years after discharge. On 10 December 1987, the recommendation for discharge was approved. 14. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under honorable condition (general) on 23 December 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. He was credited with 1 year, 5 months, 14 days of net active service. His separation code was JHJ, and reentry code was 3. 15. On 24 February 2021, the ABCMR requested the applicant provide a copy of his medical documents to support his issue of alcohol abuse. 16. The applicant provided a letter from Headrick Medical Center, dated 11 March 2021, that states the applicant has been under the care of Dr. H_ since 2016 to the present. He states the applicant has had no significant medical issues and based on his history, he has been on full remission from alcohol for 27 years. [The applicant] states history of previous 10 years of alcohol abuse prior to sustained sobriety. 17. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contains policy and outlines procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be for unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Paragraph 13-1 provides for the discharge of individuals for unsatisfactory performance when the member will no develop sufficiently 18. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his statements, and the medical review, in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 19. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a discharge upgrade contending that the misconduct leading to his Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge was due to chronic alcoholism he developed during his time in the Army. b. 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 reviewed as well. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA) was not reviewed as it was not in use during his time in service. A hard copy of military medical records or civilian medical documentation was not provided for review. c. Review of the applicant’s military documentation indicates that he enlisted in the Army Reserve (Delayed Entry Program) on 15 Mar 1986 and subsequently switched to the Regular Army on 10 Jul 1986. His duty assignment was as a Medical Specialist. His awards included the Army Service Ribbon. d. He received at least eight General Counseling Forms between 26 Mar 1987 and 03 Dec 1987 for violations to include missing formations/duties, unkempt uniform, writing bad checks, slowness in completing screenings and repeated acts of misconduct/unsatisfactory performance. He received an Article 15, dated 18 Sep 1987, for “wrongfully use tetra-hydro-cannabinol” while assigned to HHC, 2/18th Infantry Battalion, 197th Infantry Brigade (Mechanized), Fort Benning, GA. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 Nov 1987 indicated, “service member relates history of chronic alcohol abuse and occasional illicit drug use…is enrolled in Drug and Alcohol treatment and will continue treatment. No prior psychiatric history noted…Service member is cleared for administrative action.” Normal behavior and normal thinking was also indicated. Also on 17 Nov 1987, a Report of Medical History indicated “excessive worry - due to personal problems.” An Elimination from the Service document, dated 04 Dec 1987 noted, “repeated incidents of poor performance.” He received an Under Honorable Conditions (General) discharge on 23 Dec 1987 with narrative reason for separation, Unsatisfactory Performance. e. 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. f. 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. The presence of alcohol problems alone without evidence of other contributing behavioral health conditions is not considered as a mitigating Behavioral Health condition. Insufficient medical records supporting the presence of significant psychological symptoms or diagnoses during his time in service were provided for review. 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: The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of his misconduct, and the reason for his separation. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. The applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference in support of a clemency determination. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the character of service the applicant received upon separation was not in error or unjust. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XX 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 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 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13, in effect at the time, contains policy and outlines procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel found to be for unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance. Paragraph 13-1 provides for the discharge of individuals for unsatisfactory performance when the member will no develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 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. 3. On 3 September 2014 the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged 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. 4. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. 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. 5. 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. 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. 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. 6. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a MEBD. Those members who do not meet medical retention standards based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200008030 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1