| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond J. Wagner | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, the applicant is requesting that his discharge under honorable conditions for misconduct – drug abuse, be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That there were discrepancies [in analyzing data from his urinalysis test]. He states that he would like to enlist in the Army Reserve. He states that he was involved with the wrong element at Fort Hood, Texas, ending his Army career. His Army record was good. His awards include the Parachutist Badge and two Army Achievement Medals. He would like another chance.
The applicant submits a copy of a 6 March 1986 DA letter informing him that the initial screening [of his urinalysis test] failed to satisfy regulatory prescriptions, and any unfavorable action taken against him as a result of his positive urinalysis report was subject, upon his request, to review and possible remedial action; and that he could petition this Board in order to correct his records.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a 9 September 1987 memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's consideration of his request for reinstatement on active duty in his former pay grade, with the restoration of all rights, privileges, and property, to include promotion consideration to pay grade E-5 (AC86-03406).
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. That board also noted that the applicant had two other incidents of drug abuse.
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 administrative discharge for misconduct – drug abuse, was proper. There were no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The Board notes the 6 March 1986 DA letter that the applicant has submitted with his application, to include the reference to the fact that his urine specimen did not meet the required cutoff levels during initial screening, failing to satisfy existing regulatory prescriptions. However, the Board believes that this matter was adequately addressed in the 9 September 1987 decision which deleted all references to his 21 September 1984 urine specimen, while at the same time denying the applicant’s request for reinstatement on active duty, etc.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.
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 that 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
___RVO_ ___RJW _ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001066162 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020409 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | 191 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011781
Counsel contends that the applicant subsequently retained the services of a North Carolina attorney to assist him in filing a request for reconsideration based on new evidence (that both urine specimens were collected on 12 August 1985 rather than on two separate dates as discussed by the ABCMR). On 24 October 1985, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (drug abuse). Evidence of record shows the...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1500289
The majority of board members at the NDRB view this as a validation of the presumption of regularity in the findings resulting from the Applicant’s sample as urinalysis specimens arriving at a Navy Drug Screening Laboratory (NDSL) are inspected for container damage or evidence of tampering, with particular attention to the condition of the box seals, which should be intact with the command’s Urinalysis Program Coordinator’s signature printed across the taped box seams. Summary: After a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069319C070402
During one of the counseling sessions, the applicant admitted to the first sergeant, in the presence of a witness, that his friends at Fort Bragg had repeatedly used marijuana in his apartment and offered that as the basis for his positive urinalysis. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence presented, the board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of abuse of illegal drugs and recommended that he be discharged under other...
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...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06329-02
Additionally, the Board concurred with the Accordingly, your application has been The names and votes of the members of the panel will be In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all such as your youth and immaturity potentially mitigating factors, and the contention that you should be reinstated since your positive urinalysis for ecstacy was flawed, based on a newspaper However, the Board concluded that article on Navy drug testing. The Department of Defense (D Progra...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086915C070212
The applicant's section sergeant testified that he was totally against drug use. During the conduct of the board of officers, which voted to separate him from the service with an UOTHC, the unit commander testified that the reason the applicant was being recommended for separation was because it was mandated by regulation; the applicant was serving in pay grade E-2 and a second time drug offender and the regulation mandated that he be processed for separation. The applicant's section...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610952C070209
That specimen when tested by urinalysis resulted in the positive indication of cocaine in her system. The commandant indicated that the applicant had claimed that the positive urinalysis was the result of her taking prescription medication. While the applicants chain of command chose not to punish her for her illegal drug use, that in itself does not invalidate the results of the positive urinalysis.
NAVY | DRB | 2011_Navy | ND1100520
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007798
On 12 October 1984, he was notified that his immediate commander was initiating action to discharge him from the Army, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9. His commander cited his positive urinalysis tests results, recorded on 13 October 1983 and 27 June 1984, as the basis for declaring him a rehabilitative failure. On 12 October 1984, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001755
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 27 June 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for drug abuse rehabilitation failure with a general discharge under honorable conditions. 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. Records show after entering a military drug rehabilitation program the applicant again failed a urinalysis test.