| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he took the blame for someone else, not knowing the penalty would be to lose his rank and his honorable discharge. An upgraded discharge might help him get his education benefits. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1987. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember). He was advanced to Private First Class, E-3 on 6 September 1987.
On 4 February 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for absenting himself from his unit. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, 14 days restriction, and 14 days extra duty.
On 28 February 1989, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of marijuana as detected through urinalysis testing. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of $349.00 pay for 2 months, 45 days restriction, and 45 days extra duty.
On or about 3 March 1989, the applicant’s commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The reasons cited were the applicant’s positive urinalysis and additional misconduct (the previous Article 15).
On 3 March 1989, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and appearance before such a board conditional upon receiving a general discharge. He elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.
On 14 March 1989, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.
On 24 February 1989, 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 14, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. He had completed 2 years and 19 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. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed and an unfit medical condition is not the direct or substantial contributing cause of his misconduct. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record. 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.
The applicant had applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He had stated that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. He had been a model soldier but it was different when he got to his permanent assignment. Then, his mother got cancer. He asked his captain about getting a discharge and went over his head to the Inspector General when apparently his captain did not help him. His captain then made sure he got a discharge and did not care what kind. On 3 October 2001, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request.
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. 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.
3. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that he was falsely accused of being absent from his unit or that his urinalysis test came up with a false positive.
4. The Board notes that the applicant’s first Article 15 was for a relatively minor offense. However, considering the closeness of the commission of the two offenses, the initiation of his separation action appears to have been appropriate. It appears that his chain of command did take into account his previous good service which led to his receiving a characterization of his discharge as general rather than under other than honorable conditions. The Board concludes that his overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that a an upgrade to fully honorable would be justified.
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
__slp___ __alr___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063175 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011023 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19890324 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710101
On 20 October 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. He requested his case be considered by a board of officers, he wanted to make a personal appearance before such a board, and wanted representation by counsel before such a board. The applicant received an Article 15 for each of the two times he tested positive for cocaine during urinalysis testing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710101C070209
On 20 October 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. The applicant received an Article 15 for each of the two times he tested positive for cocaine during urinalysis testing.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011482
A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. 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. Since the applicant admitted to using marijuana, the urinalysis procedures were not an issue before the board.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022288
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge. Following consultation with legal counsel, he requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, for the good of the service - in lieu of trial by court-martial. He also: * indicated he did not desire any further rehabilitation under any circumstances because he had no desire to perform further service * acknowledged he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004107104C070208
The application submitted in this case was received by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on 19 April 2004. On 10 February 1989, the applicant’s commander signed an elimination packet on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – patterns of misconduct. The date of application to the ABCMR is within three years of the decision of the ADRB; therefore, the applicant has timely filed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016279
On 7 December 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs and directed his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006439C071113
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s wrongful use of Cocaine and for shoplifting. After carefully evaluating the evidence of record, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations at the time and that the character of his service is commensurate with his overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018575
Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Records also show that he was discharged for the abuse of illegal drugs, which is a serious offense, and the applicant failed to provide evidence which shows that any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009544
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. On 1 June 1989, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense (drug abuse). As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he was discharged on 14 August 1989 with a fully...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090015645
He stated that there had been other incidents of wrongful use of marijuana in his unit that never resulted in the other individuals being chaptered out of the Army. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his narrative reason for separation be changed from misconduct. The applicant's records show that prior to his discharge he was counseled on fourteen separate occasions for his acts of misconduct.