| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann Langston | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Thomas B. Redfern | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded and that his narrative reason be changed.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was young and naive and had experienced personal problems with his parents. He states that he served honorably for his country for 2 years and 5 months and obtained the rank of specialist four. He contends that he was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions, but the narrative reason was given to him without legal representation. In support of his application, he submits a supplemental letter.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1984 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Eustis, Virginia, as a cargo handler. He was advanced to specialist four in February 1986.
On 31 July 1986, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for six specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty. His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class (suspended until 27 January 1987), forfeiture of $150.00, and 14 days extra duty.
On 5 September 1986, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for two specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty; for wrongfully using marijuana; and for being AWOL from 12 August 1986 to 23 August 1986. His punishment consisted of correctional custody for 14 days, reduction to
private E-1 (suspended automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 March 1987), forfeiture of $319.00 pay per month for a period of 2 months (suspended and automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 March 1987).
A bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant on 13 November 1986 for his two nonjudicial punishments and a positive urinalysis on 5 August 1986.
Nonjudicial punishment was imposed on the applicant again on 21 January 1987 for being absent from his place of duty and for wrongfully using marijuana. His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $314.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days restriction (suspended and automatically remitted if not vacated before 20 July 1987), and 45 days extra duty.
On 27 January 1987, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(d) for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs and advised him of his rights. The commander cited the reason for his proposed action as the applicant’s abuse of illegal drugs.
On 28 January 1987, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 4 February 1987, the separation authority approved the separation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 6 February 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(d) for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 4 days of creditable service with 12 days of lost time due to AWOL.
Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows "Misconduct – Abuse of Illegal Drugs."
Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant's DD Form 214 shows "JKK". Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes), in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JKK" is "Misconduct – Abuse of Illegal Drugs" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12d.
On 7 March 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. 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 Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.
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 was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(d), for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.
2. The Board considered the applicant's contention that the narrative reason was given to him without legal representation. However, evidence of record shows the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
3. 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.
4. The Board considered the applicant's contention that he was young and naive at the time in question. However, these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.
5. The narrative reason and the type of discharge are correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.
6. 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.
7. 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
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069974 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020709 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19870206 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chapter 14-12d |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct – Abuse of Illegal Drugs |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. On 1 July 1988 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge and found that the discharge process was proper in all respects.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199706838C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Accordingly on 6 July 1987 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 2 months, and 8 days of active military service. However, regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicants discharge as misconduct and do not include the term drug abuse in the narrative description of the reason for separation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000440C070205
William Crain | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge on 6 May 1998. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his general discharge to an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005450
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant states he believes there was an error in his separation as he was not able to participate in a command-sponsored drug rehabilitation program because of a deployment to Japan for a 30-day field exercise. His DD Form 214 shows: * his service was characterized as under honorable conditions * he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12d * his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021755
The applicant requests that the following corrections be made to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty): a. upgrade his character of service from general to fully honorable. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 8 months, and 6 days of creditable active military service. With respect to the narrative reason for separation, his service records show he was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 due to his misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006237
The commander advised the applicant of his right to consult with counsel; his right to obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation action; his right to request a hearing before an administrative separation board; his right to submit statements in his own behalf; to be represented by counsel; to waive any of these rights; and to withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directed or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | AR20070006841C071029
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $335.00 per month for 2 months, restriction for 45 days and extra duty for 45 days. A review of the available records fails to show that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016247
On 21 August 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct drug abuse, with a general discharge. It appears that the applicant's records were taken into consideration by his chain of command based on his having received a general discharge instead of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, which was normally considered appropriate at the time. He was properly separated for misconduct,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001284C070206
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12d, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct (drug abuse) after completing a total of 3 years, 5 months and 6 days of active military service. ____Paul M. Smith_______ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050001284 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 2005/08/30 TYPE OF DISCHARGE GD DATE OF DISCHARGE 1987/05/27 DISCHARGE...