| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the type of discharge that he received is too severe considering the nature of offenses.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 26 January 1994, he enlisted in the Army for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as an avionic communications equipment repairer.
He was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 26 July 1994, to pay grade E-3 on 1 February 1995 and to pay grade E-4 on 1 April 1996.
The applicant was counseled on 13 August 1996, regarding a urine specimen that he provided which tested positive for cocaine. He was also told that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings would be conducted and that he would be provided an opportunity to defend himself. The applicant was read his rights and he waived his rights.
On 25 September 1996, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully using cocaine between 13 July and 13 August 1996. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.
The applicant was counseled again on 30 October 1996, after he provided another urine specimen that tested positive for cocaine. During the counseling, he was directed to enroll in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program and he was told that consideration would be given to initiating separation action against him.
On 4 December 1996, NJP was imposed against him a second time for wrongfully using cocaine between 17 August and 17 September 1996. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 18 December 1996, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 based on misconduct, commission of a serious offense. He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 31 December 1996 and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 9 January 1997. Accordingly, on 4 March 1997, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 9 days of total active service.
On 18 January 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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.
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 separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant provided two urine specimens approximately 2 months apart and both tested positive for cocaine. Considering his acts of indiscipline and the nature of his offenses, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.
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
___ao___ ___rks __ ___jlp ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067230 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/06/04 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | 626 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 671 | 144.6730 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060003247C070205
When the court-martial reconvened a discussion ensued and eventually the judge denied defense’s motion to dismiss charges based on the violation of the applicant’s speedy- trial rights. The judge denied the defense counsel’s request to enter a conditional plea. After hearing testimony from the applicant and closing arguments from counsel, she sentenced the applicant to be reduced to the pay grade of E-1 and to be discharged with a BCD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511029C070209
It recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge. Thereafter, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation and the applicant was separated from the service with a general discharge certificate. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by showing that the period of service of the individual concerned terminating on 7 October 1994 was characterized as honorable and by issuing him a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007240
The unit conducted a urinalysis on 10 December 2011 and the applicant tested positive for cocaine. He does not do cocaine but he did use the coca tea. c. At the applicant's administrative separation board, a doctor from the drug testing lab states that for the level of cocaine in the applicant's specimen, he would have had to drink five cups of tea within four to five hours of the urinalysis, based on the rate at which it metabolizes.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105491C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. After a thorough review of the evidence and records presented to the Board, it appears that the applicant was properly discharged for misconduct as a result of a urinalysis screening that tested positive for cocaine.
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013100
On 26 April 2006, the applicant's command initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The applicant's original DD Form 214 shows the following: a. discharge under other than honorable conditions with 5 years, 2 months, and 16 days of creditable active service and 276 days of lost time; b. separation in pay grade E-1; c....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140018130
The applicant requests an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge. His immediate commander notified him on 28 June 1996 of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of misconduct abuse of illegal drugs for testing positive for marijuana during a unit urinalysis collection. Although an under other than honorable conditions discharge...
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...
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 | CY2002 | 2002066456C070402
On 14 June 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because his positive urinalysis did not meet all scientific or legal requirements for use in disciplinary or administrative action is not supported by the evidence of record. Therefore, the Board has declared that both of these specimens are unsupportable and that all...