| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be changed to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was a drug and alcohol abuser before he entered the Army and hoped the Army would make a man out of him. Except for his drug use he was a good soldier. He states that he was young and immature at the time and could not stop drinking or using drugs. He entered a treatment program in April 1989 and has been sober and drug free since. He now spends a lot of his time helping other people get clean. He has not broken the law except for traffic tickets since he left the Army. He asks for forgiveness, as he is now a responsible, productive member of society.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 14 July 1982, at almost 20 years of age. After completion of training he was assigned to Panama as an infantryman. On 15 December 1983, at over 21 years of age, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful possession of marijuana and amphetamines. The approved punishment included reduction in pay grade from E-3 to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction and extra duty. The applicant did not appeal the punishment.
On 15 February 1985, the applicant was identified as having used marijuana on or before 3 January 1985, based on the results of a positive urinalysis test. The memorandum of notification to the applicant's commander noted that soldiers who have been identified in two separate instances (drug use) since 1 July 1983, are required to be separated from the service. On 12 March 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongful use of marijuana. The approved punishment included a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.
On 15 March 1985, the applicant was identified as having used marijuana on or before 11 February 1985, based on the results of a positive urinalysis test. The memorandum of notification to the applicant's commander noted that this was a confirmed second positive for marijuana use.
On 8 April 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for breaking restriction on two separate occasions. The approved punishment included a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.
On 19 April 1985, the applicant was informed of the commander's intent to recommend him for separation for illegal drug abuse. After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to have his case considered by a board of officers or to submit a statement in his own behalf. The Acknowledgement of Notification he signed also stated that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued. He also acknowledged that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for consideration of a discharge upgrade.
The commander forwarded his recommendation that the applicant be separated for misconduct based on recurrent drug use. Enclosed with the recommendation was a Report of Mental Status Evaluation from 5 March 1985. This evaluation noted that the applicant's behavior was normal. He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood. His thinking was clear, his thought content normal, and his memory good. In the examiner's opinion the applicant was mentally responsible and met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501.
On 10 June 1985, the separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions. Effective 11 June 1985, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. He had 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days creditable service.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.
There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year time limit.
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 was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and veteran's benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
2. The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief. The Board notes that the applicant was over 21 years of age at the time of his first drug offense.
3. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.
4. 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___ __rwa___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066407 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020620 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19850611 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A66.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074696C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted in certain cases.
NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00130
Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :841004: NJP for violation of UCMJ, Article 112A: Wrongfully use marijuana on 30Aug84, as evidenced by a positive urinalysis test. A summary courts-martial was held on 21 June 1985 on applicant for altering the message from the Navy Drug Lab with the results from the urinalysis held on 2 May 1985.850717: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Marijuana use, less than monthly May 1985, ashore off duty. After a thorough review of the records,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016247
On 21 August 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct drug abuse, with a general discharge. It appears that the applicant's records were taken into consideration by his chain of command based on his having received a general discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which was normally considered appropriate at the time. He was properly separated for misconduct,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004358
On 4 September 1985, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense (use of illegal drugs). The first vote resulted in recommendations by two board members to retain the applicant; by one board member to issue a General Discharge Certificate; and by two board members to separate him under other than honorable conditions. However, in this case the evidence showed that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086628C070212
On 8 May 1987, the applicant was discharged, with a discharge UOTHC, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. On 9 March 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014203
He understood that if he received a discharge certificate/ character of service which is less than honorable, he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, he realizes than an action of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. On 31 January 1986, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013699 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009385
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 13 November 1979, for 3 years. On 18 June 1985, the applicants commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d. The applicant was separated on 17 July 1985, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d, Misconduct Drug Abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014624
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 21 July 1977 and he was discharged on 28 November 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12d, for misconduct based on drug abuse, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. The applicant contends, in effect, his general under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based upon a review of his military personnel records. The evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082805C070215
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. The applicant requests...