| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity; that his record of promotions shows that he was generally a good soldier; and that he has been a good citizen since discharge.
In support of his application, the applicant submitted a copy of his performance of duty counseling for 8-23 August 1983, a recommendation and indorsment for promotion to private first class/E-3, a certificate of promotion to specialist/E-4, and the Good Conduct Medal.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 July 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 4 years and for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator). The applicant was 17 years old when he enlisted in the RA. He successfully completed all required military training, was awarded MOS 72E, and was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for his first permanent duty station.
On 6 January 1984, the applicant was transferred to Fort Shafter, Hawaii.
On 6 June 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana. His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $172.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended), and 14 days’ extra duty.
On 19 September 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana. His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3, forfeiture of $185.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended), and 14 days’ extra duty.
On 12 February 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana. His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to private/E-2, forfeiture of $167.00 pay per month for 1 month, and 14 days’ extra duty.
On 14 February 1986, the commanding officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense. The commander stated that the applicant’s history of misconduct violated acceptable
standards of personal conduct and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. He further noted that the applicant had been involved in dishonored check writing and possession and use of marijuana. The applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent.
On 14 February 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he would like to be honorably discharged from the Army because he felt it was in the best interest of his family and himself. He also stated that anything less than honorable would create more problems and stress for his family.
On 28 February 1986, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a GD. Accordingly, on 18 March 1986, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 3 years, 7 months, and 28 days of active military service.
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.
On 13 August 1987, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. On 10 May 1988, the ADRB changed the applicant’s reason for discharge from misconduct – commission of a serious offense to misconduct – drug abuse and declined to upgrade his characterization of service.
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 found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
2. The applicant, by habitually violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier. The applicant had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
3. The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
4. 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.
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
___AAO_ ___HOF__ __TEO__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065513 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020430 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20020318 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, c14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Director |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9405 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012608C071029
On 23 March 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs), and directed the applicant receive a GD. On 25 March 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The separation authority may grant a GD or HD if it is warranted by the member's record of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002271C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his narrative reason be changed. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014764
On 30 June 1986, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 4 days of creditable active service. ___ Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060014764 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070405 TYPE OF DISCHARGE GD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19860818 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 14. .
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069974C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Army Regulation 635-5-1...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. On 1 July 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709343C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. However, it does include a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075194C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. However, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicants discharge as misconduct and do not include the term drug abuse in the narrative description of the reason for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001284C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12d, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct (drug abuse) after completing a total of 3 years, 5 months and 6 days of active military service. ____Paul M. Smith_______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001284 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2005/08/30 TYPE OF DISCHARGE GD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1987/05/27 DISCHARGE...