| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member | ||
| Mr. William D. Powers | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: An honorable discharge instead of a general discharge under honorable conditions (GD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he has learned from his past and would like not to be penalized for the rest of his life. He states, that he was recently wed and has a child on the way. He would like to provide the best for his family and to do so; he needs to remove the hurdle that he has in front of him. He believes, that the type of discharge that he received has stopped him from being hired. He realizes that he was wrong but one irresponsible weekend lead to this. He states, that he now has responsibilities and would like the chance to change the mistake that he made. The applicant submitted a letter in support of his application.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 5 January 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 14T10 (Patriot Missile Crewmember). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.
On 19 June 2001, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for five occasions of failure to go at the prescribed time his appointed place of duty. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $283.00 pay (suspended for 3 months), a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 3 months) and 14 days restriction and extra duty.
On 5 September 2001, a urinalysis test was conducted in the applicant's unit. The applicant tested positive for Cocaine.
On 21 September 2001, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for the wrongful use of Cocaine. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, 45 days extra duty and a forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for
2 months.
On 10 October 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. The applicant acknowledged that he understood that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. After being advised of the impact of the discharge action; he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 12 October 2001, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 26 October 2001, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct, with a general discharge. He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 22 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.
On 30 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. After being advised by a legal counsel, the applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a GD. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
3. 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. The applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army’s drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant is to be commended for his post service accomplishments. However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.
4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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
__JNS__ __DPH___ __WDP__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002071641 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/12 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/10/26 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200,chp14 . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.144.6000 | |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003516
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070003516 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 30 April 1991, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080238C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed 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. The applicant has also failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010280
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge, under honorable conditions, be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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, and he was issued a general discharge, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005407
The commander informed the applicant that the least favorable characterization of service he could receive would be under other than honorable conditions. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his general discharge on 4 November 1993. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs and was issued a general discharge,...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007108
The evidence contained in the applicants service record shows that on 7 December 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) for the use of cocaine. On 17 January 2005, separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver submitted by the applicant and referred his administrative separation to the administrative separation Board. On 11...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100018469
Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 29 April 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130004627
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 3 April 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense) for testing positive for the wrongful use of cocaine. On 21 April 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130002111
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 26 October 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14; section III, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for the wrongful use of cocaine between (090110 and 090115). However, the evidence of record shows separation action was initiated against the applicant for his wrongful use of cocaine and not for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050006221C070206
The applicant states that she was not given the chance to rehabilitate in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 1, paragraphs 1-15 and 1-16; chapter 3, paragraphs 3-1, 3-4, 3-7, 3-11 and 3-12; and chapter 4, paragraphs 4-1, 4-2, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-10. Pertinent Army regulations provide that, prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. There is no evidence of record which shows the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006439C071113
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s wrongful use of Cocaine and for shoplifting. After carefully evaluating the evidence of record, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations at the time and that the character of his service is commensurate with his overall...