APPLICANT REQUESTS: That a formal investigation be conducted into the circumstances of his involuntary separation and that he be reinstated.
APPLICANT STATES: That his chain of command initiated action to separate him from the Army Reserve (USAR) under the provisions of chapter 7, Army Regulation (AR) 135-178 because he tested positive for cocaine during a random drug screening of unit personnel. He was given a board of officers which, he contends, did not follow standard operating procedures (SOP), voted to separate him without sufficient evidence, and did not have a quorum of board members necessary to decide his case.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 24 March 1982. Upon completion of his military training, he was assigned to a unit at Fort Stewart, Georgia, with duty as a medical specialist. He left active duty on 11 March 1985 and returned to his home of record in North Carolina. On 12 March 1985, he entered the USAR and was assigned to a hospital unit in Durham, North Carolina.
On 5 April 1992, the applicant, then a sergeant, participated in a command directed drug screening of unit personnel by providing a urine sample. When the
urine sample was analyzed, it came back as positive for cocaine use. On 6 June 1992, the applicants commander initiated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of AR 135-178. After consulting with legal counsel and being advised of his rights, the applicant requested appearance before a board of officers.
The board of officers was duly constituted and met on 28 August 1992 to consider the applicants case. The board consisted of three voting members, one of whom was the board president. The applicant was present and represented by defense counsel. After hearing testimony and considering all other evidence, the board found that the applicant did use illegal drugs and recommended that he be separated with an honorable discharge. The Report of Proceedings by the Board of Officers, for unknown reasons, was signed by the two board members, but not by the board president. The recommendation was approved by the appointing authority and the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge on 21 December 1993.
Army Regulation 15-6 establishes procedures for conducting investigations and boards of officers not specifically authorized by any other directive;.the regulation is a general guide for all investigations or boards. It defines a quorum as a simple majority of board members.
Army Regulation 135-178 establishes policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the Army National Guard (ARNG) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR). Chapter 7 describes discharges for misconduct, including use of illegal drugs.
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 the aforementioned requirement.
2. This Board is not an investigative body; it makes its determinations based upon a review of the official record and any evidence provided by the applicant. The applicants request for an investigation is not within the purview of this Board.
3. The applicant tested positive for cocaine use on a properly conducted, random drug test; his chain of command elected to separate him; he was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and elected to present his case to a board of officers.
4. The board of officers was duly constituted, consisting of three voting members. After hearing all testimony and reviewing all evidence, and with a quorum present, the board found that the applicant had used illegal drugs and recommended that he be separated with an honorable discharge. Although one of the board members (the president) did not sign the boards proceedings, the other two members did sign making the results valid.
5. 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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06979-00
in which his division officer, LT (G) upon returning ETCS (St.C) recalls an event on March 17, 1997 aboard USS SAIPAN from morning officers' call, informed him that the CSD division had been selected for urinalysis screening. that had the whatever division I am in. contention that CSF division was selected only because you were a However, every individual who testified member of that division.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015802
The applicant requests upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge. The board recommended the applicant be separated from the USAR in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 7-11c(1), for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, with a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007240
The unit conducted a urinalysis on 10 December 2011 and the applicant tested positive for cocaine. He does not do cocaine but he did use the coca tea. c. At the applicant's administrative separation board, a doctor from the drug testing lab states that for the level of cocaine in the applicant's specimen, he would have had to drink five cups of tea within four to five hours of the urinalysis, based on the rate at which it metabolizes.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074391C070403
He said he believes that there was unlawful command influence and that the applicant was denied the right to effective counsel, stating that counsel assigned to a respondent is placed on orders for the day of the hearing and that any contact and preparation on the part of the counsel must be made at his [counsel's] own expense. The applicant's commander indicates that he informed the applicant's legal counsel that he was concerned that he had not contacted the applicant prior to this time...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105491C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. After a thorough review of the evidence and records presented to the Board, it appears that the applicant was properly discharged for misconduct as a result of a urinalysis screening that tested positive for cocaine.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066022C070421
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01752
Subsequently, an administrative discharge board found that she wrongfully used cocaine and she was discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. At the time of her separation from the Air Force Reserve on August 4, 2005, she had 18 years and 17 days of satisfactory service. Lastly, the applicant relies on the fact that her urine and hair samples submitted to a civilian Laboratory on the date she was advised that she had tested positive for cocaine tested negative and...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2002-093
of the Personnel Manual, his CO was recommending that he be administratively discharged from the Coast Guard. He argued that because the applicant acknowledged his rights, declined to make a statement, and signed the first endorsement on his CO’s recommendation for his discharge, the applicant was not denied any due process regarding his discharge. He contended that the “irregularity” with which the CO handled the charges against him likely resulted in his command applying...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00148
ND99-00148 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review, received 981106, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to Honorable. PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION My offer to submit a new sample for analysis when I was informed of the results of the 3 August 1991 analysis vas denied.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078839C070215
Sergeant T___ of the police department testified that the department's policy was that officers are not given prior notice to take a drug test and the applicant never failed a random drug test since he had been with the department. In a previous case considered by the Board (AR2000043313), it was noted that an officer from the Tripler Army Medical Center Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory had testified in that applicant's administrative separation board that, to test positive for...