| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Stephanie Thompkins | Analyst |
| Ms. Joann H. Langston | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Melinda M. Darby | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was put out of the service based on hearsay and no proof. He also states that if someone is supposed to be working undercover for the police and not show up for court after stating they purchased marijuana from him, there is something wrong with that picture. The Army put him out because a Korean woman said he sold her some marijuana and she could have purchased the marijuana from anyone.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, on 22 January 1982.
He was advanced to private first class on 1 October 1982.
On 14 February 1983, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for violation of lawful general regulation, during the period of June through September 1982, to wit: by transferring duty-free goods to a person not authorized duty-free goods. His punishment included reduction to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay for 2 months, restriction for 30 days and extra duty for 30 days.
A Criminal Investigation Division Report of Investigation dated 8 April 1983 states that the applicant wrongfully possessed and distributed 12.67 grams of marijuana to a confidential informant on 9 February 1983.
On 24 June 1983, his commander recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense. The commander stated that this action was based on the applicant's apprehension for being in possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana.
On 27 June 1983, the applicant acknowledged through counsel the proposed separation. He requested consideration of his case with his personal appearance by a board of officers. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 25 July 1983, a board of officers convened to determined whether the applicant should be discharged before his expiration of term of service because of wrongful possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana. The board found the applicant undesirable for further retention in the service due to the commission of a serious offense and recommended that the applicant be discharge from the service with the issuance of a UOTHC discharge certificate.
On 17 August 1983, the appropriate authority considered the record in the applicant's case and approved the request for discharge. It was directed that the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade and issued a UOTHC discharge certificate.
He was discharged on 2 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense and issued a UOTHC discharge certificate. He was credited with 1 year, 7 months and 11 days of total net active service.
There is no evidence of record that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 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 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 leave. 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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to an upgrade of his discharge. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now requests.
2. The Board has noted his contentions; however, the applicant elected and appeared before a board of officers based on the distribution of a controlled substance. It was determined that he should be discharged because of wrongful possession with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. 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.
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___ _JHL___ _REB____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073444 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020919 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A70 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2009 | 20090000789
The applicant states, in effect, that his record of promotions showed he was a good Soldier. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant completed an election of rights in which he requested consideration of his case by a board of officers, personal appearance before a board of officers, and consulting counsel. The version of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge, was relatively the same as the current version of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068921C070402
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. On 11 November 1984, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003135
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants upgrading his UOTHC discharge to a general discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050000357
The applicant states that his military records indicate that he possessed, used, and distributed a controlled substance, and that his command placed on record that the controlled substance was Alphamethyltryptamine (AMT). He states that his commander ignored his claim that AMT was not a controlled substance and decided to impose the most serious punishment permissible, by initiating action to discharge him from the Army for use of a controlled substance, based on the one AMT incident. d....
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060002391
The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014202
On 31 December 1985, the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the findings and sentence. The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his discharge was unjust at the time of his offenses. It is noted that if the applicant was found guilty of the charged offenses today, and was convicted at a trial by court-martial, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for a single violation of Article 112a, would be a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050005603C070206
He is requesting, in effect, that the "Distribution" and "Possession" specifications be removed from the U. S. Army Criminal Investigation Command's (CID's) Report of Investigation (ROI). The applicant’s military records from his Regular Army service are not available to the Board. The DA Form 4833 he provided indicates he was given an Article 15 in May 1999 for the offenses of wrongful distribution of marijuana, wrongful possession of marijuana, and wrongful use of marijuana.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019298
The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. c. Paragraph 3-7b states that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024899
On 3 December 1987 consistent with the immediate, intermediate, and senior commanders' recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct and directed his service be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct commission of a...