| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti | Analyst |
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Member | |
| Mr. Conrad V. Meyer | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: Since his discharge, he has been a dedicated husband and father, and is now raising his nephew. He has bettered himself by completing the required coursework to be awarded an Associate Degree in computer programming. He started working in the Department of Veterans Affairs as a janitor, was promoted to medical clerk, and finally to pharmacy technician. He concludes that he's made a lot of bad decisions in his life that he cannot change, but is, in effect, requesting clemency based upon the passage of time and his post-service conduct.
In support of his request, he submits several statements attesting to his involvement in his church and his work ethic as it pertains to his civilian job. He also submits certificates attesting to civilian training he has completed, a certificate of ordination as a deacon, and a certificate showing that he was given a performance award.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 April 1975, was awarded the military occupational specialty of armor recon specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4. He was honorably released from active duty on 1 April 1977.
He enlisted in the Regular Army as prior service on 8 June 1977, and was awarded the military occupational specialties of cavalry scout and infantryman.
On 9 February 1982, which was the day the applicant was promoted to pay grade E-5, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful possession of hashish.
On 3 January 1985, the applicant, then serving in pay grade E-6, was the subject of a urinalysis. His specimen tested positive for hashish.
On 16 May 1985, a board of officers was convened to determine whether the applicant should be separated prior to the expiration of his term of service due to misconduct, use of illegal drugs. The board of officers found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of misconduct, use of illegal drugs, and that his rehabilitation was not deemed possible. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged due to misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs [commission of a serious offense] and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.
After review by the appropriate authority, rehabilitative measures were waived and the separation was approved, but the reason was changed to misconduct – a pattern of misconduct. While incorrect, changing it to misconduct – commission of a serious offense, would be an adverse action. The applicant was separated on 16 August 1985 due to a pattern of misconduct and issued a General Discharge Certificate.
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, and 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. When discharge due to misconduct is authorized, a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge during that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant has not claimed, nor has the Board found, that any error or injustice occurred during his discharge process.
2. The applicant has every reason to be proud of his accomplishments after his discharge from the Army. It is evident that he is now an asset to his employer, his church, his family and his community. However, the applicant has not submitted any evidence that his post-service conduct is so meritorious as to warrant upgrading a properly issued discharge.
3. In this regard, the applicant's record shows that he was given leniency on several occasions during his military career. He was allowed to keep his promotion to sergeant when he was caught being in possession of a controlled substance; he was promoted to staff sergeant after he accepted NJP for possession of a controlled substance; and he was given a General Discharge Certificate when soldiers who are separated due to misconduct are normally given Under Other Than Honorable discharges. To grant the applicant further leniency would not be appropriate or called for under the circumstances.
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
__tsk____ ___cvm__ ___cla __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076336 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021210 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | A60.00 |
| 2. | A92.21 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008771
The appellate review must be completed and the sentence affirmed before the bad conduct discharge could be duly executed. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. The applicant has not provided any evidence or argument to show his discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027955
U.S. Military Community Activity Bamberg memorandum, dated 29 April 1985, subject: Synopsis of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Rehabilitation Activities, shows the applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP Track I on 11 January 1985. On 31 May 1985, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068706C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant, as the widow of a deceased former service member (FSM), requests that her husband’s discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. However, the Board also noted the FSM’s record of service included four nonjudicial punishments for drug and alcohol related incidents.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003247C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Army because of misconduct (conviction by civil court) with the issuance of a less than honorable discharge certificate. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007800
He admitted to having a drug problem and received counseling, but it did no good. He requested consideration of his case by a board of officers and to appear before that board. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120009795
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's 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. On 4 June 1984, the sentence was approved and the record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for review by a Court of Military Review. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 24 January 1985 under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009217
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. However, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate his contention that the electrical shock that he sustained was the cause of his acts of misconduct. The available evidence show that it was not until 2008/2009 that he alleged a personality change which is almost 24 years after his discharge from the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079765C070215
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was 25 years old at the time of his offenses and that he had completed almost 6 years of military service.