2.  The applicant requests In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

3.  He was born on 13 March 1943.  He completed 10 years of formal education.  On 6 September 1962, he was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years.  His Armed Forces Qualifications Test score was 13 (Category IV).  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 111.10 (Light Weapons Infantryman).  

4.  On 15 January 1963, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial for being absent without leave from 
13 to 27 December 1962 and from 31 December 1962 to 
9 January 1963.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 6 months and a forfeiture of $25 pay per month for 6 months.
   
5.  On 22 January 1963, a mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels.  He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. 

6.  On 13 February 1963, the applicant requested an interview with his commander.  During his interview the applicant admitted to being an habitual user of heroin. He admitted to injecting heroin in the veins of his arms 4 to 
5 times a day, utilizing a hypodermic syringe and needle.  The applicant also stated, that he used heroin while in AWOL status and also admitted to smuggling heroin into the stockade.  The applicant showed his commander scars on his left arm from main line injections.       

7.  On 12 March 1963, the applicant was notified that his commander was recommending a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 for unfitness, due to drug addiction.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

8.  On 3 April 1963, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC).  On 11 April 1963, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-208, for unfitness, (drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of a habit forming narcotic drugs or marijuana) with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 3 months and 12 days of creditable active service. 

9.  Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, provided in pertinent part the policies, procedures, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel who were determined to be unfit for further military service.  However, at the time of the discharge a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate. 

10.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Under Department of Defense Memoranda of 7 July and 
13 August 1971, the latter sometimes known as the Laird Memorandum, administrative discharges under other than honorable conditions, issued solely on the basis of personal use of drugs, or possession of drugs for the purpose of such use, will be reviewed for recharacterization; that under such policy, each Secretary of a military department is authorized to issue a discharge under honorable conditions upon establishment of facts consistent with this policy. In a memorandum dated 28 April 1972, the Department of Defense expanded this policy to include review of punitive discharges and dismissals resulting from prior approved sentences of courts-martial.  The policy was applicable only to discharges which were executed on or before 7 July 1971, or issued as a result of a case in process on or before 
7 July 1971.

12.  Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.28,
11 August 1982, Discharge Review Board Procedures and Standards, establishes uniform policies, procedures, and standards for the review of discharges or dismissals under Title 10, United States Code, section 1553, and applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Departments. Section 4 of that Directive sets forth the objectives for discharge review.  It provides that a discharge shall be deemed proper unless it is determined that a change in policy by the military service of which the applicant was a member, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge under consideration, requires a change in the discharge.  Furthermore, a discharge shall be deemed to be equitable unless there is substantial doubt the applicant would have received the same discharge if relevant current policies and procedures had been available to the applicant at the time the discharge was considered, even though the discharge was determined to have been otherwise equitable and proper at the time of issuance.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
 
2.  While the conduct which led to the applicant’s separation cannot be condoned, the fact that he was a drug addict render him unsuitable for further military service, and should be considered in mitigation.  

3. Under the Department of Defense Memoranda of 7 July and 13 August 1971, known as the Laird Memorandum, provides policy for review for recharacterization of discharges issued solely on the basis of personal use of drugs, or possession of drugs.  It appears that this Board should adopt the standards set forth in that Directive for this particular case.

4.  Had the ADRB reviewed the applicant’s discharge under the DOD Directive 1332.28, it is reasonable to presume that his discharge would have been upgraded based on the application of the current regulation.

4.  In view of the current standards for discharges issued because of drug abuse, a discharge UOTHC was unduly harsh and unjust.  It would now be appropriate to correct the inequity and issue the applicant a General Discharge Certificate.    

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was separated from the service with a General Discharge Certificate on 11 April 1963.

2.  That the Department of the Army issue to the individual concerned a General Discharge Certificate from the Army of the United States, dated 11 April 1963, in lieu of the discharge UOTHC of the same date now held by him.

3.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.                  

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON