| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Roger Able | Member | ||
| Mr. Curtis L. Greenway | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: A medical discharge instead of a discharge under honorable conditions (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that at the time of his discharge he was on profile. No push-ups, no pull-ups and no lifting over 15 pounds. He was unable to perform his duties in the military.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 7 December 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91A10 (Medical Specialist).
The applicant's record indicates that in February 1985, while in basic training he dislocated his shoulder. During the month of April and June of 1985, the applicant re-injured his shoulder. The applicant was placed on profile for several weeks before his operation on his shoulder in September 1985. However, the particulars surrounding his surgery are missing from his file.
On 9 May 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the wrongful use of marijuana. His imposed punishment was an oral reprimand, 45 days extra duty and a forfeiture of $373.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended for 2 months).
On 4 June 1986, a urinalysis test was conducted in the applicant's unit. The applicant tested positive for marijuana.
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.
On 5 August 1986, a Report of 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.
On 10 August 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-drug abuse. The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant testing positive on two separate occasions for marijuana use. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged notification, consulted with legal counsel and waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.
On 28 August 1986, the appropriate authority approved approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 18 September 1986, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14-12, for misconduct – drug abuse, with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 18 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. Although, the applicant record does show that he dislocated his shoulder while in training on three different occasions in 1985 and that he received an operation on his shoulder in the same year. The Board believes, that the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.
3. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__MMD__ __RA__ __CLG__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069083 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1986/12/18 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chapter 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.6000 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110005633
Counsel requests an upgrade of the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions to an honorable discharge. On or about 26 November 1986, an MEB convened at Fort Benning, GA. After consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical evaluations, the MEB diagnosed the applicant as having the medically unacceptable conditions of left shoulder repair (existed prior to service) and mild acromioclavicular joint arthritis. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023731
The applicant contends the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed and his under other than honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded because he was prescribed morphine, which made him an addict; he was then prescribed ibuprofen, which produced a false positive reading for THC; his age, background, maturity, and educational level were factors that led to him going AWOL; and there were compelling circumstances that warranted his prolonged unauthorized absence. There is...
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 | 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 | CY2003 | 2003089822C070403
The medical evidence is new evidence which will be considered by the Board. There is no evidence in the available records that the applicant had any mental or medical condition prior to his discharge on 2 May 1986. Chapter 7 (Physical Profiling) of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and...
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 | 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 | CY1996 | 9606812C070209
The formal PEB concluded that the applicants left shoulder condition prevents reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty and rated his condition at 20 percent under VASRD Code 5201. They noted that the applicants shoulder condition was properly rated and that although the applicant established that he probably had a herniated disc at L5-S1 before separation that fact was considered and did not change any PEB findings or recommendations. The PDA concluded...
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 | 20060002271C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his narrative reason be changed. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.