| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 30 January 1985 for a period of 5 years. He attended One Station Unit Training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantry).
Between 5 September 1985 and 28 December 1988, the applicant was counseled on six occasions for various infractions which include financial problems, indebtedness, failures to report, driving an unauthorized vehicle, suspected drunk driving and unsatisfactory performance.
On 2 June 1988, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using cocaine. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended and automatically remitted if not vacated before 2 September 1988), forfeiture of $335 for 1 month and restriction.
Between 19 October 1988 and 28 December 1988, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on three occasions for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, for failure to repair and breaking restriction.
On 6 February 1989, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using cocaine. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $250 pay and extra duty.
On 9 March 1989, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) and (abuse of illegal drugs). The unit commander recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge. He cited that the applicant wrote approximately 20 checks with insufficient funds, that he failed to pay two bills to commercial establishments and that he used cocaine on two occasions. The unit commander also noted the various infractions for which nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant.
On 9 March 1989, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation. He also acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 9 March 1989, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) and (abuse of illegal drugs).
The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.
On 10 March 1989, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). He directed the issuance of a general discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 27 March 1989 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs). He had served
4 years, 1 month and 28 days of total active service.
On 20 February 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 14, in effect at the time, dealt with separation for various types of misconduct, which include 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.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that he needs his discharge upgraded for entitlement to educational benefits. However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits.
2. 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.
3. The Board noted that the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate; however, the separation authority directed the issuance of a general discharge in this case.
4. The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service which included five nonjudicial punishments, two of which were for cocaine use, and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to an honorable discharge.
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
FNE___ BJE_____ REB_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069246 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020418 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19890327 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CHAPTER 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs) |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017497
The applicant requests correction of his separation code and narrative reason for separation so he may reenter military service. On 24 July 1989, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct abuse of illegal drugs and directed he be furnished a general discharge. The evidence of record confirms the applicants narrative reason for separation and his SPD code were assigned based on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013456
The applicant requests, in effect, his discharge characterized as under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The commander advised the applicant of his right to have his case considered by a board of officers (if he had 6 or more years of total active and reserve service or an under other than honorable conditions recommendation is made by the separation authority), to appear in person before a board of officers, to submit statements in his own behalf, to be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007028
On 12 January 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 18 January 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on drug abuse, and his service was characterized as under other than honorable...
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 | CY2009 | 20090009742
On 21 February 1990, the applicant was discharged. Paragraph 6-5d, states that a Soldier will be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate regardless of his or her overall performance of duty, if the discharge is based upon limited use evidence. Under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 6-5d, a Soldier will be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate regardless of his or her overall performance of duty, if the discharge is based upon "limited use" evidence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008558
Block 24 (Character of Service) of the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to him at the time shows that he received a "General, (Under Honorable Conditions)" characterization of service. Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows "Misconduct - Abuse of Illegal Drugs." The applicant's records show he was nearly 22 years of age at the time of his enlistment and there is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015952
On 2 February 1989, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12d for misconduct, the use of illegal drugs. He waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board on the condition he received no less than a general discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013914
The regulation in effect at the time stated individuals in pay grades E-5 and above could be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. _______ _ __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 | CY2012 | 20120020800
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. Each time he was counseled, he was advised that further misconduct could result in his separation for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), or he could be processed for disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). It appears the separation authority favorably considered his request...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100016279
On 7 December 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs and directed his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of...