MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION 

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           10 December 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076336

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Conrad V. Meyer		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

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

APPLICANT STATES:  Since his discharge, he has been a dedicated husband and father, and is now raising his nephew.  He has bettered himself by completing the required coursework to be awarded an Associate Degree in computer programming.  He started working in the Department of Veterans Affairs as a janitor, was promoted to medical clerk, and finally to pharmacy technician.  He concludes that he's made a lot of bad decisions in his life that he cannot change, but is, in effect, requesting clemency based upon the passage of time and his post-service conduct.

In support of his request, he submits several statements attesting to his involvement in his church and his work ethic as it pertains to his civilian job.  He also submits certificates attesting to civilian training he has completed, a certificate of ordination as a deacon, and a certificate showing that he was given a performance award.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1975, was awarded the military occupational specialty of armor recon specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.  He was honorably released from active duty on 1 April 1977.

He enlisted in the Regular Army as prior service on 8 June 1977, and was awarded the military occupational specialties of cavalry scout and infantryman.

On 9 February 1982, which was the day the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-5, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession of hashish.

On 3 January 1985, the applicant, then serving in pay grade E-6, was the subject of a urinalysis.  His specimen tested positive for hashish.

On 16 May 1985, a board of officers was convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service due to misconduct, use of illegal drugs.  The board of officers found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of misconduct, use of illegal drugs, and that his rehabilitation was not deemed possible.  The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged due to misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs [commission of a serious offense] and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

After review by the appropriate authority, rehabilitative measures were waived and the separation was approved, but the reason was changed to misconduct – a pattern of misconduct.  While incorrect, changing it to misconduct – commission of a serious offense, would be an adverse action.  The applicant was separated on 16 August 1985 due to a pattern of misconduct and issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  When discharge due to misconduct is authorized, a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

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

1.  The applicant has not claimed, nor has the Board found, that any error or injustice occurred during his discharge process.  

2.  The applicant has every reason to be proud of his accomplishments after his discharge from the Army.  It is evident that he is now an asset to his employer, his church, his family and his community.  However, the applicant has not submitted any evidence that his post-service conduct is so meritorious as to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge.

3.  In this regard, the applicant's record shows that he was given leniency on several occasions during his military career.  He was allowed to keep his promotion to sergeant when he was caught being in possession of a controlled substance; he was promoted to staff sergeant after he accepted NJP for possession of a controlled substance; and he was given a General Discharge Certificate when soldiers who are separated due to misconduct are normally given Under Other Than Honorable discharges.  To grant the applicant further leniency would not be appropriate or called for under the circumstances.

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

__tsk____  ___cvm__  ___cla __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076336	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A60.00	
2.	A92.21	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.