Citation Nr: 18148690 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 530 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from May 1992 to December 1993, with one year, six months, and 24 days of service. 2. The Veteran was discharged from active duty prior to the completion of his initial enlistment period due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. 3. The Veteran does not meet any of the exceptions to the minimum active-duty service requirement for individuals who originally enlisted after September 7, 1980. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1521, 5303A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.12a, 3.203, 3.314 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1992 to December 1993, with one year, six months, and 24 days of service. His DD-214 and other service personnel records establish that he was discharged from active duty prior to the completion of his initial enlistment period due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.203. A person who originally enlists (enlisted person only) in a regular component of the Armed Forces after September 7, 1980, and any other person (officer as well as enlisted) who enters on active duty after October 16, 1981, and who has not previously completed a continuous period of active duty of at least 24 months or been discharged, or released from active duty under 10 U.S.C. § 1171 (early out), who does not complete a minimum period of active duty is not eligible for any benefit under Title 38 of the United States Code or under any law administered by VA based on that period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12a(c). The term “minimum period of active duty” means the shorter of the following periods: (1) 24 months of continuous active duty; or (2) the full period for which a person was called or ordered to active duty. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12a(a). As the Veteran did not serve 24 months of continuous active duty or his initial enlistment period, he does not meet the minimum active-duty service requirement outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 5303A and is not eligible for any benefit under Title 38 of the United States Code or under any law administered by VA unless an exception to the minimum active-duty service requirement applies. The minimum active-duty service requirement does not apply: (1) to a person who is discharged or released under 10 U.S.C. §§ 1171 or 1173 (early out or hardship discharge); (2) to a person discharged or released from active duty for a disability adjudged service connected without presumptive provisions of law, or who at the time of discharge had such a service-connected disability, shown by official service records, which in medical judgment would have justified a discharge for disability; (3) to a person with a compensable service-connected disability; (4) to the provision of a benefit for or in connection with a service-connected disability, condition, or death; and (5) to benefits under chapter 19 of title 38, United States Code. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12a(d). As previously noted, the Veteran was not released under 10 U.S.C. §§ 1171 or 1173 and was rather discharged prior to the completion of his initial enlistment period due to alcohol rehabilitation failure. He does not have any service-connected disabilities. He has primarily asserted that he should be deemed to have been discharged from active duty due to a service-connected disability because alcoholism is a disease; however, Congress has expressly prohibited service connection for primary alcohol abuse disabilities. See Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d. 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the Veteran does not meet any of the exceptions to the minimum active-duty service requirement. The undisputed facts in this case show the Veteran does not meet the minimum active-duty service requirement for individuals who originally enlisted after September 7, 1980. The record fails to establish any of the enumerated exceptions to active-duty service requirement apply in the Veteran’s case. As a result, the Veteran’s pension claim must be denied as a matter of law because the threshold minimum active-duty service requirement has not been met. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. S. Kyle, Counsel