MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           8 May 2003                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083166

	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:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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:  That he has been clean and sober for 11 years and would now like to have his discharge upgraded.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 August 1984.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman and was promoted to pay grade 
E-3.

On 1 October 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for testing positive for cocaine on a urinalysis test.

On 16 October 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for again testing positive for cocaine on a urinalysis test.

The applicant’s commander then initiated action to discharge him for misconduct, drug abuse.  The applicant was notified of his rights in conjunction with his commander’s recommendation, and opted to waive those rights.  

On 25 November 1985, the applicant (then in pay grade E-1) was issued a General Discharge Certificate for misconduct, drug abuse.

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, desertion or absence without leave, and drug abuse.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or is unlikely to succeed.  While an honorable or general discharge is authorized for soldiers who are separated due to misconduct, an under other than honorable discharge is normally considered appropriate.

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 does not challenge the validity of his two positive urinalyses, nor does he challenge the appropriateness of his discharge.  However, the Board has reviewed both of these issues and finds no error in them.

2.  While it is commendable that the applicant has recognized he had a problem with illegal drugs, and has now achieved prolonged abstinence from these substances, this realization and abstinence is not sufficient to warrant upgrading his discharge.  Since a soldier discharged for misconduct is normally issued an under other than honorable discharge, the fact that the applicant was issued a general discharge is indicative that he was already afforded leniency for his actions.  To now upgrade his discharge to fully honorable would be inequitable to soldiers who completed their complete terms of service without any record of misconduct.

3.  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

___mdm _  ___sac__  ___rld ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083166	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030508	
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.	A93.17	
4.		
5.		
6.