| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was told at the time of his discharge his general discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 5 August 1980 for a period of 4 years.
On 8 April 1981 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.
On 26 March 1982 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.
The applicant served as a fire support specialist in Korea from 20 November 1982 through 21 November 1983. He reenlisted on 9 March 1984 for a period of 6 years.
On 2 June 1986 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using marijuana.
On 18 June 1986 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). The unit commander based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s recent positive urinalysis for marijuana.
On 23 June 1986 the applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected to submit statements on his own behalf. He submitted
13 character reference letters from soldiers and civilians in support of his retention in the Army.
On 1 July 1986 the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs).
The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.
On 8 July 1986 the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 July 1986 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). He had served
5 years, 11 months and 21 days of total active service.
There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 14, in effect at the time, dealt with separation for various types of misconduct, which include drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service. Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, 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. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded in six months. However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The Board noted that the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate; however, the separation authority directed the issuance of a general discharge in this case.
4. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
5. 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 this requirement.
6. 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
SP_____ ALR_____ TEO_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001060343 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011023 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860725 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct (Abuse of illegal drugs) |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087831C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 2 April 1986 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). The applicant’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments and for that reason his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074696C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005847
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 10 February 1987 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. _________xxxx__________ 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000287
On 11 March 1986, the applicant was discharged from active duty in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct for abuse of illegal drugs. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, also provided that a general discharge was a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The board recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct for abuse of illegal drugs and issued an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014052
He further acknowledged that if he received a discharge certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 27 March 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs. Additionally, paragraph 14-3 states that an under other than honorable discharge...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010495
There is no evidence in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. The applicants record of service included two nonjudicial punishments for marijuana use.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000908
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. It appears that the applicant's overall record was taken into consideration by the separation authority based on his having received a general discharge, instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003844
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 5 June 1986 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code JKK is Misconduct Drug Abuse." Evidence of record shows the applicant, a SGT, was discharged for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs).
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010353
The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 4 August 1988, he was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (commission of a serious offense). On 31 August 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120000061
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 18 June 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Although the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate based on the reason and authority for his separation, it appears his immediate commander and the separation authority considered his service record and recommended and approved a general discharge.