| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Christopher J. Prosser | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes his discharge is inequitable because he was separated with a GD based on one isolated incident after 4 years of service and no other adverse actions. During the time of his drug use, he was experiencing personal problems; his son had major surgery. He received no treatment for drug addiction after his problem was exposed. He has since sought rehabilitation through the veteran's hospital. He wanted to make the military a career. He is ashamed of his GD and he apologizes for his behavior and requests that he not be condemned for one mistake. He wants the opportunity to obtain a good job. The applicant provided in support of his request three Medical Records/Progress Notes that show he attended occupational therapy between August and October 1995.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That prior to the period of service under review, he served honorably in the Regular Army from 5 January 1988 - 4 March 1991. On 5 March 1991, while assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, he reenlisted for 2 years in pay grade E-4 and for his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).
On 24 July 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of the Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant for being absent from his unit on 18 July 1991. His punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction (suspended for 30 days).
On 28 October 1991, NJP was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully using cocaine, after a biochemical testing showed that his urine specimen tested positive for cocaine. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1 and 45 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 6 November 1991, the applicant underwent both a separation physical examination and a mental status evaluation that determined he was qualified for separation.
On 15 January 1992, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant was advised that the bases for this recommendation were his misuse of cocaine and his continuous failure to obey orders and regulations. The applicant was advised of the rights available to him.
On 16 January 1992, the applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects. He was also advised of the rights available to him and that he was not entitled to have an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers. The applicant declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On an unknown date, the applicant's commander recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct, with a GD. The applicant's commander stated the applicant had been counseled verbally and in writing by the chain of command and reprimanded under NJP action on three different occasions and he failed to respond. The available record contains only the two NJP's previously mentioned.
On 21 January 1992, the appropriate authority directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and that he not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
On 27 January 1992, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, for misconduct-drug abuse with a GD. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows that he had completed 4 years and 23 days of creditable active service and had no recorded lost time.
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, to include abuse of drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted.
The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking a change in the characterization of his service as well as a change in the narrative reason for separation. On 16 December 1996, the ADRB deleted "drug abuse" from Item 28, (Narrative Reason for Separation) on the applicant's DD Form 214 and issued him a new DD Form 214.
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 have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. The Board notes that the applicant had no medically disqualifying conditions at the time of separation; therefore, the documents the applicant submitted with his application are not relevant.
4. There is no evidence available, and the applicant has provided none, to suggest he requested treatment for drug abuse.
5. The applicant knowingly violated the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs. Therefore, he risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
6. 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
__sk____ __cjp___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082471 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030911 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19920127 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A94.29 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.9429 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013273
On 16 January 1992, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), for misconduct. Although a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter, the separation authority may issue an HD or GD if warranted by the member's overall record of service. The applicant contends that her military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070015005
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. There is no evidence which indicates the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations. There is no evidence of record which indicates the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011211
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 8 November 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant that he intended to initiate separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct. The board of officers recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service due to misconduct commission of a serious offense and that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019806
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 April 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed he receive a GD. On 30 September 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration and review of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006845
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD). The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), by reason of misconduct drug abuse. Although the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge authorized the imposition of an under other than honorable conditions...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006522C071029
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he completed a total of 1 year, 8 months, and 26 days of active military service. There is no indication 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. It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of JKK is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000305
The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. ___________x_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070314C070402
On 28 May 1991, the applicant was notified that a board of officers would convene on 18 June 1991 to determine whether he should be separated from the AGR program and released from active duty for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 due to being AWOL and use of an illegal drug. Army policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.The separation code "JKQ"...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067625C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The chain of command did not accept his conditional waiver and the applicant appeared before an administrative separation board, represented by counsel, on 16 July 1992, at 0930 hours. The administrative separation board which considered the applicant’s case and recommended his discharge, was properly convened and functioned in compliance with pertinent regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010189
The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded and that the reason for separation be changed. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. Although the applicant's good character and post service conduct and the impact his war experiences had on him as attested to in the supporting statements are noteworthy, there is no evidence that he was suffering from any disabling physical or mental conditions during...