Title: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge
Author: +

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                      AC97-11819
Consideration (cont)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his discharge was too harsh and his post-service conduct has been good.  He submits as supporting evidence two officer evaluation reports (OERs) and statements of support.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 3 April 1967.  He completed 16 years of formal education.  He was ordered to active duty as a second lieutenant on 17 March 1991.  He completed officer basic course and served as a 92A (Quartermaster, General).  The highest rank he held was first lieutenant.

His OERs for the periods ending 30 June 1993 and 8 May 1994 show the applicant to be an outstanding officer; potential excellent.

On 7 September 1994, the applicant tendered his unqualified resignation from the Army.

On 12 September 1994, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongful use of cocaine and hydrocone and wrongful possession of hydrocone pills.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $1,000 pay for 2 months, that in excess of $500 pay suspended for 2 months.  He appealed the Article 15 but the appeal was denied.

On 2 November 1994, Headquarters, Department of the Army approved the applicant’s unqualified resignation and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 15 January 1995, he was discharged with a character of service of “under honorable conditions,” (a general discharge) in pay grade O-2.  He had completed 3 years, 9 months and 29 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-120, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the release from active duty and discharge of officer personnel.  The character of service would be predicated on the officer’s behavior and performance while a member of the Army.  Characterization would normally be based on a pattern of behavior and duty performance rather than an isolated incident.  However, there were circumstances in which conduct reflected by a single incident could provide the basis of characterization of service.  A separation under honorable conditions would normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation under circumstances involving misconduct or was separated based on misconduct, including misconduct for which punishment was imposed, which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation would be appropriate.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error.

2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge given was appropriate considering the seriousness of the misconduct with which the applicant was charged and the applicant’s age and rank.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                              Loren G. Harrell
			             	        Director