| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Lana E. McGlynn | Member | ||
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that her discharge be voided and that she be restored to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) or as an alternative, that the narrative reason for separation be changed to a more favorable reason that will allow her to enlist in the USAR.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that after having served over 17 years in the Reserve Components, she was unjustly discharged for using drugs; however, she did not use drugs and was punished for something she did not do. She goes on to state that the military is her life and her career was unjustly terminated.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She initially enlisted in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) on 12 May 1984 and remained in the OKARNG until she was honorably discharged on 24 July 1997. She enlisted in the USAR on 25 July 1997 and was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 8 December 1998.
On 28 September 2000, the applicant's commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, chapter 7, due to misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the positive urinalysis results of a sample provided by the applicant on 12 August 2000. The sample tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cocaine.
The applicant exercised her rights and requested to appear before a board of officers and to be represented by counsel. The proceedings of the board are not present in the available records. However, her records show that on 24 September 2001, she was discharged from the USAR, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 7-11.c.1, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. She had served 1 year, 3 months and 2 days of her current enlistment in the USAR for a total of 17 years, 4 months and 12 days of service.
The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge, a change to the narrative reason for separation and restoration to the USAR. The ADRB found that the length and quality of her service mitigated her misconduct and voted to upgrade her discharge to honorable. However, the ADRB found no basis to change the narrative reason for separation and denied that portion of her request. The ADRB also informed her that it (that board) did not have the authority to restore her to the USAR and advised her to apply to this Board
Army Regulation 135-178 serves as the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel serving in the USAR and Army National Guard. Paragraph 7-11.c.1 of the regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of enlisted personnel for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. Normally personnel separated under this provision will be separated under other than honorable conditions; however, the regulation provided that a discharge under honorable conditions could be issued.
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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must presume that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s rights. Accordingly, she was given the proper narrative reason for her separation and she has failed to convince the Board that it should be changed to something other than the actual basis for her separation.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions that she was unjustly discharged and that she should be restored to the USAR. However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with her application or the evidence of record. She was afforded an opportunity to present her evidence to dispute the urinalysis before a board of officers and apparently was not able to convince that board that she did not use the drugs that were detected. Likewise, she has failed to convince this Board that the urinalysis was flawed.
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
__lem___ ___fe ___ ___lb ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082064 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/06 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 191 | 110.0200/RSN/AUTH |
| 2. 192 | 110.0300/REINSTATE |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2015 | AR20150002341
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the length of the applicants service, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., the unit commander recommended the applicant be allowed to continue serving under her command and retained in the Army Reserve...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015691
The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e., the doctors confirmation that the medications were legitimate and the cause of the positive urinalysis; which was the reason for the applicants discharge, abuse of illegal drugs), mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the US...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010242
IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 23 August 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130010242 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicants overall length and quality of her service...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130020628
IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 14 March 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130020628 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony, and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the circumstances surround...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110015802
The applicant requests upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge. The board recommended the applicant be separated from the USAR in accordance with Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 7-11c(1), for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs, with a general discharge. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130001838
The available evidence shows the applicants record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization. Arlington, VA Date: 17 July 2013 The Army Discharge Review Board, under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130015115
The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of her rights. The applicant was discharged as a SPC/E-4 6. The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100659C070208
The applicant requests, in effect, the following corrections: removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR), administrative separation board (ASB) proceedings and promotion flagging orders from his official military personnel file (OMPF); a change to the narrative reason for his discharge; promotion to lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 15 August 2000 and back pay for 20 years; and issue of a Twenty-Year Letter, dated on or about 5 March 1999. The applicant states, in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105491C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. After a thorough review of the evidence and records presented to the Board, it appears that the applicant was properly discharged for misconduct as a result of a urinalysis screening that tested positive for cocaine.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090007182
Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 7-11(C)(1), in effect at the time, provided for the discharge for misconduct when it was determined that the Soldier was unqualified for further military service by reason of abuse of illegal drugs. However, her overall record of service was considered at the time of her general discharge and the character of her service appears to be appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. There is no evidence of record,...