| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That the general discharge prevents him from being employed within the Federal Government. Enough time has passed that this blemish should not follow him for the rest of his life. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1976. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67V (Observation/Scout Helicopter Repairer).
The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that he was first promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 13 October 1979. It shows he was reduced to Specialist Fourth Class, E-4 on 23 April 1980 (only the portion of the Article 15 vacating the suspended reduction is available). He was reduced to Private First Class, E-3 on 2 July 1980 (the Article 15 is not available). He was promoted again to Sergeant, E-5 on 4 May 1984.
On 10 December 1984, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for wrongful use of some amount of marijuana between about 27 July and 6 August 1984. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4.
On 5 March 1985, the applicant received a mental status evaluation. The applicant was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.
On 8 March 1985, the applicant’s company commander recommended retention of the applicant despite the positive test for marijuana use because the applicant was an asset to the maintenance team, he had good leadership qualities, and was dependable, knowledgeable, and worthy of a second chance. On an unknown date, the battalion-level commander recommended the applicant be discharged.
On 20 March 1985, the applicant’s company commander initiated discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, acts or patterns of misconduct. The applicant was advised that the least favorable characterization of service description he could receive was a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated discharge action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 27 March 1985, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and directed he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.
On 8 April 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct – drug abuse. He had completed 8 years, 3 months, and 24 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. First-time drug offenders, grades E-5 – E-9, will be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. In pertinent part, the regulation states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
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 this requirement.
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. As an E-5 with 8 years of service, the applicant was fully aware that drug use was contrary to military good order and discipline and what the possible penalties for such use could be. The Board concludes that his command considered his record of service when it was directed he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The evidence of record does not support a further upgrade to fully honorable.
3. 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
__rvo___ __jpi___ __wdp___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001062935 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011129 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850408 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A66.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054353C070420
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 29 October 1985, the applicant accepted his an NJP for operating a motor vehicle, while drunk. On 5 December 1985, the applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct with a HD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005722C071029
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 May 1985, the applicant’s commander advised him he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. On 7 June 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060132C070421
On 29 March 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 (Drug Abuse-Rehabilitation Failure), with a general discharge. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2001060132SUFFIXRECONDATE BOARDED20011211TYPE OF DISCHARGE(GD)DATE OF DISCHARGE19850329DISCHARGE AUTHORITYAR635-200, chapter 9 .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100675C070208
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The evidence of record shows he received excellent EERs, award of the Army Achievement Medal, and the second award of the Army Good Conduct Medal during the period of service under review. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected: a. by showing he was discharged on 27 January 1986 with a general discharge in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003175
The commander also advised the applicant that the proposed separation could result in a general discharge or an honorable discharge. He stated the evidence of record indicated that the urinalysis was done properly. Therefore, it is apparent the applicant's commander considered the applicant's overall record of service when he recommended a general discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070005499C071029
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he believes that his discharge should be upgraded based on the fact that he served in the Army for 4 years with a good record. Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080009931
On 23 January 1985, the applicant submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of Chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) for abuse of illegal drugs. The applicant received a general discharge under honorable conditions when a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate under the provisions of Chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004460C070205
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the narrative reason for separation, separation authority, separation code and reenlistment code be removed from his report of separation (DD Form 214). Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 October 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure. There is no indication in the available records to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059884C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, $2000 fine and confinement at hard labor for 8 months. Evidence of record shows that the applicant’s military career included a pattern of drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068801C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: On 30 December 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance.