IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090007244 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states he barely finished high school and flunked out of junior college. When his father told him to get out of the house, he joined the Army as a last resort. He completed initial entry training without any problems, but when he arrived at his first permanent duty station at Fort Hood, he began hanging around the wrong type of people. He began drinking, partying, and using marijuana. He received nonjudicial punishment. Now, some 10 years later, he has straightened himself out. He doesn’t drink or take drugs, and he has a good job. He is a father, will soon graduate from college, and is an upstanding American citizen. 3. The applicant provides a personal letter, dated 11 April 2009. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he served in the Regular Army from 26 March 1997 through 12 March 1999, a period of 1 year, 11 months, and 17 days. It shows he served as an ammunition specialist with the 664th Ordnance Company, Fort Hood, TX. It further shows he was separated with a general under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for misconduct. 3. The applicant's discharge packet is not available. However, he petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a discharge upgrade. The ADRB considered his case on 1 September 2004. The case review shows the applicant received field grade nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 12 June 1998 for a positive urinalysis test. His chain of command recommended he be discharged under other than honorable conditions; however, the approving authority approved a general discharge. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Essentially, it states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. 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. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 5. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added) or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant tested positive for illegal drugs during a urinalysis test. He received NJP and was processed for administrative discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. 3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at that time. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The overall quality of the applicant’s service does not warrant recharacterization of his discharge to fully honorable. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X____ ____X__ ____X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090007244 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090007244 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1