| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaugnessy, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his full past military career was not considered and the battalion commander was determined to make an example out of his case. He also states that there were discrepancies with the way the urinalysis was conducted and also with the chain of custody. He does not have copies of all the records concerning his discharge and it has been extremely difficult to obtain any type of government job at any level once they see a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 1983 with prior service.
He attained the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5, on 6 April 1987.
On 16 November 1987, he tested positive for use of marijuana.
On 13 January 1988, his commander advised the applicant that he intended to recommend the applicant for administrative separation for commission of a serious offense.
On 27 January 1988, through counsel the applicant acknowledged the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. He elected not to have his case heard before a board of officers, waived personal appearance before an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 2 February 1988, the applicant’s commander recommended he be separated from the service due to commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. He also recommended that the applicant be separated with an other than honorable discharge.
On 12 February 1988, his commander appointed an administrative separation board to determine if the applicant should be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.
On 17 March 1988, the applicant waived consideration by a separation board contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service or description no less favorable than a general discharge. He also did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 22 March 1988, the Criminal Law Division of the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the separation action for wrongful use of marijuana and found it to be legally sufficient.
The appropriate authority approved the discharge and the applicant was separated on 1 April 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, Misconduct-Drug Abuse. He had a total of 4 years, 8 months and 5 days net active service this period. His character of service was general, under honorable conditions.
On 10 October 1991, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service. Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge or to a change in the reason for his discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests. He was properly discharged and he has not shown otherwise.
2. The Board has noted his contentions that his entire past military record was not considered and there were discrepancies with the way the urinalysis was conducted. However, the one incident that led to the applicant’s discharge was a serious act of misconduct. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so. The applicant’s misconduct thus diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
3. This Board also presumes administrative regularity in the processing of the applicant's urinalysis. There is nothing in the available records or submitted by the applicant to overcome that presumption.
4. The Board also notes that the applicant requested he receive a characterization of service or description no less favorable than a general discharge and a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
5. 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.
6. 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
__sk____ __jtm___ __teo___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068745 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | YYYYMMDD |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040011719C070208
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 13 December 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge due to misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs and directed the applicant be issued a general discharge with a characterization of service as under honorable conditions. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002185C070205
This memorandum stated that the applicant committed serious misconduct by wrongfully using marijuana, that this was his second drug related offense, and that he had written dishonored checks. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. The applicant received a general discharge for illegal drug use when most Soldiers who are separated under this provision receive an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021517
Counsel requests correction of the applicant's records as indicated on his application. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 11 May 2005. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070007310C071029
After carefully considering the evidence before it, the administrative separation board, by majority vote, found the preponderance of the evidence established that the applicant had used illegal drugs, and it recommended the applicant's separation for misconduct with a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). Counsel claimed that had the evidence of the polygraph been admitted, the decision likely would have been in the applicant's favor. He stated that the administrative...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027848
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. The applicant states that after speaking with an attorney, he was advised that he could not be discharged for being a rehabilitative failure while he was in rehabilitation. The applicant's records show he was counseled on 12 separate occasions for: * testing positive for both tetrahydrocannabinol and cocaine during a troop urinalysis * overall performance * failing to report to physical training * failing...
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 | 20090014236
On 12 August 1988, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge (misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs) and directed the issuance of a general discharge. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the member's overall record. ___________X______________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013872
The applicant states, in effect, that her discharge was based on one incident in seven years of otherwise honorable service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-drug abuse. The regulation in effect provided that first time abusers, in pay grades E-5 through E-9, would be separated upon discovery of a drug offense.
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 | CY2012 | 20120005292
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 23 August 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition for an upgrade of his discharge and a change to his narrative reason for separation. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons.