MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:           11 September 2003                   
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002082471

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he believes his discharge is inequitable because he was separated with a GD based on one isolated incident after 4 years of service and no other adverse actions.  During the time of his drug use, he was experiencing personal problems; his son had major surgery.  He received no treatment for drug addiction after his problem was exposed.  He has since sought rehabilitation through the veteran's hospital.  He wanted to make the military a career.  He is ashamed of his GD and he apologizes for his behavior and requests that he not be condemned for one mistake.  He wants the opportunity to obtain a good job.  The applicant provided in support of his request three Medical Records/Progress Notes that show he attended occupational therapy between August and October 1995.  

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

That prior to the period of service under review, he served honorably in the Regular Army from 5 January 1988 - 4 March 1991.  On 5 March 1991, while assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, he reenlisted for 2 years in pay grade E-4 and for his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

On 24 July 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of the Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his unit on 18 July 1991.  His punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended for 30 days).  

On 28 October 1991, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully using cocaine, after a biochemical testing showed that his urine specimen tested positive for cocaine.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1 and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. 

On 6 November 1991, the applicant underwent both a separation physical examination and a mental status evaluation that determined he was qualified for separation.  

On 15 January 1992, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant was advised that the bases for this recommendation were his misuse of cocaine and his continuous failure to obey orders and regulations.  The applicant was advised of the rights available to him.  

On 16 January 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was also advised of the rights available to him and that he was not entitled to have an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers.  The applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On an unknown date, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, with a GD.  The applicant's commander stated the applicant had been counseled verbally and in writing by the chain of command and reprimanded under NJP action on three different occasions and he failed to respond.  The available record contains only the two NJP's previously mentioned.

On 21 January 1992, the appropriate authority directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and that he not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.  

On 27 January 1992, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct-drug abuse with a GD.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows that he had completed 4 years and 23 days of creditable active service and had no recorded lost time.

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, to include abuse of drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted.

The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a change in the characterization of his service as well as a change in the narrative reason for separation.  On 16 December 1996, the ADRB deleted "drug abuse" from Item 28, (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant's DD Form 214 and issued him a new DD Form 214.    

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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant had no medically disqualifying conditions at the time of separation; therefore, the documents the applicant submitted with his application are not relevant.  

4.  There is no evidence available, and the applicant has provided none, to suggest he requested treatment for drug abuse.  

5.  The applicant knowingly violated the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs.  Therefore, he risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

6.  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

__sk____  __cjp___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082471	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19920127	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A94.29	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.9429	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.