| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he wishes to have his discharge changed because it was a one-time incident that has not been repeated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 3 February 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76J10 (Medical Supply Specialist). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.
Between February 1985 and April 1986, the applicant accepted three nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for three occasions of the wrongful use of marijuana. His punishments included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-2.
The applicant’s military record indicates that he was counseled on three occasions for testing positive for marijuana and for two occasions of failure to repair.
On 11 April 1986, the applicant was barred from reenlistment because of his abuse of illegal drugs.
On 15 April 1986, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and actions, which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service. On
17 April 1986, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel and waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.
A mental status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation. There was no evidence of psychosis or neurosis or other disorders qualifying him for disposition through medical channels. He was considered mentally competent to participate in board proceedings. A medical examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 6 May 1986, the Commanding General approved the recommendation, reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade and directed the issuance of a Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. On 14 May 1986, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct-drug abuse, with a discharge UOTHC. He had completed 2 years, 3 months and 12 days of creditable active 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 leaves. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
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 or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__jhl___ __wtm___ __rwa___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002066950 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020314 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UOTHC) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19860514 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp14 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006874C071029
On 12 March 1986, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 14 April 1986, the applicant was discharged, with a general under honorable conditions discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087831C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 2 April 1986 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). The applicant’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments and for that reason his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002907C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: The applicant requests that his discharge, characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), be upgraded to honorable. On 16 September 1986, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024241
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It states that an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The applicant argues his discharge should be changed to HD due to his immature actions regarding his declination of further rehabilitation treatment and illegal drug abuse while serving on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002121C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 February 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040002121 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. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, the applicant did not file within the 3- year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069083C070402
A separation examination dated 5 August 1985, was performed on the applicant, however the report and the result of the examination are missing from his file. The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military...
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060014712C071029
He requested his records be reviewed and he be granted an honorable discharge. 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.
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.