| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request to change his discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That when his medical discharge was approved, he was not under any investigation and there was no reason for his orders to be delayed. He had to take a urinalysis and the test returned positive for drugs. The positive results were from an authorized prescription medication. He showed his chain of command the medications and they also had his medical file and they were aware that the medications he was taking would alter the urinalysis test. His clearance papers had already come down but he was not allowed to clear in an attempt to trump up charges against him. He still has the medical condition he had which resulted in the Physical Evaluation Board determining he was unfit for duty and it has become more severe.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 3 May 2001 (docket number AR2000051060).
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 applicant’s original argument was that the urinalysis had been tampered with. His current argument is that his prescribed medications resulted in a positive urinalysis. In either case, the applicant could have elected to be tried by court-martial where these arguments could have been brought up as evidentiary matters. He, instead, chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. That request included an admission of guilt. He may now feel that he made the wrong choice but he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
__fne___ __tsk___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001064155 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020110 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004255C070206
The applicant states, in effect, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should investigate whether the urinalysis book used by his unit was lost prior to his discharge, and contends that, if so, his positive urinalysis tests were not valid. On 24 December 1985, the appropriate authority directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct - abuse of drugs. He was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058680C070421
A DA Form 4466 dated 23 June 1983 indicates that the applicant was changed from Track I to Track II after he came up positive for THC on a urinalysis. The remarks section of the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, DA Form 3822-R, indicates that he was being “discharged for criminal activity.” The panel’s report, entitled “Review of Urinalysis Drug Testing Program,” dated 12 December 1983, concluded that the testing procedures used by all laboratories were adequate to identify drug abuse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057866C070420
Counsel states that the evidence failed to prove that the applicant knowingly used cocaine. Counsel states that the government’s case, both at trial and before the board, rested solely on the results of the urinalysis test. The board stated that the applicant was not desirable for further retention in the military service and recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062295C070421
The applicant submits copies of documents related to his reductions in grade which include his company commander’s 12 January 2000 recommendation for separation, part of the proceedings of his 21 November 2000 Administrative Separation Board, a summary of his rehabilitation appointments recorded on two appointment information sheets, two court-martial charge sheets for cocaine use, a 26 June 2000 summary of rehabilitation services, and a 30 November 2000 letter from a private substance abuse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 04106846C070208
She notes that the UCMJ action states that she violated Article 112a, wrongful use of marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance, when her letter of reprimand and polygraph test results clearly show that she did not use a controlled substance, but rather, exercised poor judgment by using a dietary supplement, hemp seed. The applicant also states, in effect, that if she truly violated Article 112a, under the “zero tolerance” rule her UCMJ action would not have been filed in her restricted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000387C070208
Carol A. Kornhoff | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states that the Purple Heart is awarded for a wound sustained as a result of hostile action. The applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for award of the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal because he was not assigned to Vietnam for at least 6 months and he was medically evacuated as a result of drug abuse...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066162C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 18 September 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board, in an unanimous opinion, denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable. That board noted that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) had removed from the applicant’s record all reference to the positive urinalysis received on 21 September 1984.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079682C070215
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 June 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002079682 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052439C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 20 December 1984, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance. He had 4 days lost time due to being AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067370C070402
On 10 May 1999, the applicant’s counsel submitted an appeal of the bar to reenlistment through the chain of command to the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM). She asserted that the applicant had been denied due process because the chain of command had failed to forward the applicant’s appeal of the bar to reenlistment to the commanding general before the bar was approved. RECOMMENDATION : That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by removing the...