APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable and that the rank on his DD Form 214 be restored to specialist/E-4.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he went before a hearing in order to finish his tour and he was treated like he was undergoing a court martial. He also claims he had two fully honorable discharges between the period September 1974 and September 1984 and that he had completed most of his last enlistment honorably.

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

On 30 September 1984, while assigned overseas in Germany, he reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. At the time of his reenlistment he held the rank of sergeant/
E-5, held military occupational specialty (MOS) 51K (Plumber), and had completed 8 years, 11 months, and 17 days of honorable active military service of which 2 years,
11 months, and 18 days had been documented on a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on
22 November 1977.

A review of his previous service between 24 September 1974 and 22 November 1977 reveals that the applicant was convicted by special court martial for violations of Articles 92 and 81 (i.e., wrongfully possess a controlled substance-Phencyclidine and conspiracy to sell a controlled substance-Phencyclidine). His record also documents 71 days of lost time due to confinement as a result of this conviction.

Additionally, on 5 November 1980, prior to his last reenlistment, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for violation of Article 121 (i.e., stealing a lunch meal, property of the government).





The applicant's record of promotions, throughout his military service, was erratic. He first advanced through the grade of private first class, which he earned on
30 April 1975, before being reduced to private/E-1 on
10 October 1975. He then advanced through the rank of
staff sergeant/E-6 which he obtained on 7 September 1984 before being first reduced to sergeant/E-5 on 19 August 1986, and then from sergeant/E-5 to specialist/E-4 on
29 September 1986.

During the period of service under review the applicant accepted three NJP's: the first on 11 June 1986 for AWOL,
the second on 19 August 1986 for being derelict in performance of his duties and disobeying a lawful order; and the third on 29 September 1986 for breaking restriction and drunk driving/speeding. He also received two letters of reprimand, one for drunk driving, and another for being involved in a verbal/physical altercation with a female dependent.

On 16 September 1986 the applicant was barred from reenlistment by his unit commander who in addition to documenting the applicant's record of NJP and court-martial provided the following chronological list as factual and relevant indicators of the applicant's unsuitability:

         on 14 March 1986 - A car accident in which he lost control of his vehicle and ran into a ditch. Alcohol was listed as a related cause;

         on 23 May 1986 - Enrolled in ADAPCP, Track II, attended two individual counseling sessions and six group sessions at which time he agreed to a treatment plan which stated total abstinence as his goal. He was declared an ADAPCP failure for not making necessary changes and not following his treatment plan. ADAPCP personnel recommended the applicant be placed in a residential treatment facility or discharged;







         and, on 10 August 1986 - He was stopped by military police for speeding, he subsequently failed a field sobriety test, and refused a breathalyzer test. Based on the implied consent law in effect at the time he received a general officer letter of reprimand for driving while intoxicated.

On 11 September 1986 the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated from service, under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for acts or patterns of misconduct.

On 1 October 1986 the applicant consulted counsel, waived a hearing by a board of officers, and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. On 31 October 1986 he again consulted counsel and changed his election of rights by requesting his case be heard by a board of officers.

On 19 November 1986, after approval recommendations from intermediate commanders, the approval authority directed a board of officers convene to consider the applicant's case.

On 8 December 1986 the board of officers met, the applicant appeared with counsel and the board recommended separation with a discharge, under other than honorable conditions.

On 18 December 1986 the appropriate approval authority approved the board results and directed the applicant be discharged under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, on 19 December 1986 the applicant was discharged after completing 8 years, 11 months, and 17 days of active military service.

On 1 March 1990 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade to his discharge.








Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedure 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.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time. The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3. 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.

4. Since there is no basis to grant the portion of his request pertaining to the propriety or equity of his discharge, there is likewise no basis to grant the remaining portion of his request regarding restoration of rank.

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