| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Ms. Tracey L. Pinson | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was discharged due to inaccurate urinalysis results and because he has never taken or used any drugs other than that prescribed by a doctor. He further states that he has become a productive member of society and desires an upgrade of his discharge so he can purchase a home and pursue a career in the intelligence field.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 1 August 1978 for a period of 4 years and training as a power generation and wheel vehicle mechanic. He successfully completed his training and was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 July 1980.
On 8 June 1982, while stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, he reenlisted for a period of 4 years and training as an electronic warfare intercept systems repairer. On 8 January 1983, he was transferred to Fort Devens, Massachusetts, to undergo his training. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 August 1983.
On 24 April 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for driving a motor vehicle while drunk. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay. He also received a general officer letter of reprimand, which was directed for filing in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).
On 1 August 1983, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of extra duty for 7 days.
On 10 August 1984, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct due to a pattern of misconduct. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, two positive urinalysis results for cocaine, one positive urinalysis for marijuana, the applicant’s sworn statement that he used drugs, statements from witnesses who were present when he made his sworn statement regarding his drug usage, failure to respond to counseling, his disciplinary record, and his possession of marijuana.
On 27 August 1984, NJP was imposed against him for the wrongfully possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4 and a forfeiture of pay.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to exercise his right to appear before a board of officers. He made this election on 16 August 1984; however, on 9 October 1984, after again consulting with counsel, he waived his right to appear before a board of officers and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. He indicated that he had served the Army faithfully and deserved a better characterization than under other than honorable conditions. He also indicated that the evidence against him was insufficient for such a characterization and that he did not use drugs knowingly.
The appropriate authority (a major general) approved the recommendation for discharge on 1 November 1984 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 9 November 1984, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for misconduct – pattern of misconduct. He had served 6 years, 3 months and 9 days of total active service.
There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories include minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and/or military authorities, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, drug abuse, and desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. Additionally, there was not then, nor is there now, any provisions for an automatic upgrade of such a 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 procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The board has noted the applicant’s contentions. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record. The evidence of record clearly shows that he admitted his drug use and he was found in possession of drugs as well. Accordingly the Board finds no evidence of error or injustice in his 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
__kak___ __mm___ ___tp ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002072669 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/28 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1984/11/09 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/ch14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/a60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086915C070212
The applicant's section sergeant testified that he was totally against drug use. During the conduct of the board of officers, which voted to separate him from the service with an UOTHC, the unit commander testified that the reason the applicant was being recommended for separation was because it was mandated by regulation; the applicant was serving in pay grade E-2 and a second time drug offender and the regulation mandated that he be processed for separation. The applicant's section...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003332
He acknowledged he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if his request for discharge is accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He stated the applicant had received NJP on 13 May 1983 for possession and use of marijuana. On 25 January 1984, the separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021414
The applicant provides a Department of Army letter, undated, subject: Correction of Military Records, Positive Urinalysis Tests during the Period April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983. Based on the panel's findings that a number of previously reported positive urinalysis test results were not scientifically or legally supportable, a team of chemists and attorneys have reviewed all available records of positive urinalysis tests reported from April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983 by each...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008901
The applicant states that he was discharged under other than honorable conditions because of supposed repeated positive urinalysis tests which he argued at the time to be wrong because the alleged repeated use did not take place. Furthermore, had the applicant been discharged strictly based on the results of the urinalysis results in question, he would have been discharged for Misconduct Drug Abuse or Misconduct Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure. The applicant has failed to provide...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03093380C070212
He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers. The applicant was discharged on 9 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, for misconduct – drug abuse. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for separation for misconduct; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the member's overall record.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085394C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 5 June 1985, the Board approved his request to delete all references to the 4 August 1983 urinalysis from his records and denied his request to be reinstated as a military policeman. A review of his records fails to show any promotion instruments which promoted the applicant to the pay grade of E-4 while he was on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004291
Although the complete facts and circumstances regarding the applicant's discharge, i.e., his complete separation packet, are not contained in his military records, on 29 October 1985 the applicant's commanding officer recommended that separation proceedings be approved for the applicant under the provisions of chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. On 21 February 1986, the proper separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016531
A letter, dated 7 March 1984, from Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command, HI, Fort Shafter, HI stated the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for a positive urinalysis for marijuana on a unit sweep conducted 22 November 1983. It was recommended he be separated under the provisions of Chapter 13 or 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). There was no separation action taken at that time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005722C071029
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 May 1985, the applicant’s commander advised him he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. On 7 June 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012565
On 24 May 1984 the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, commission of a serious offense, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 3 July 1984 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct drug abuse, with an under other than...