| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | ||
| Ms. Linda M. Barker | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was falsely accused of using drugs and that he has since been diagnosed as being schizophrenic. He further states that he began hearing voices after visiting two Nazi Death Camps in Germany in 1982.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: In effect, that the applicant's record of service and his medical condition should be considered with a view toward upgrading his discharge.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Dallas, Texas, on 13 August 1981 for a period of 4 years, training as a cannon crewman, assignment to the 1st Infantry Division and a $5,000 enlistment bonus. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, for his advanced individual training and follow-up assignment. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 December 1983.
On 6 November 1984, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for repeatedly being absent from his place of duty. His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.
On 14 March 1985, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was cleared for separation.
On 5 April 1985, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana between 19 January and 19 February 1985. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 10 April 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. He cited as the reason for his recommendation that the applicant had tested positive for marijuana twice.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The commander submitted the recommendation for discharge and the appropriate authority approved it on 25 April 1985 and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions.
Accordingly, he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 30 April 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. He had served 3 years, 8 months and 18 days of total active service.
On 9 January 1986, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. He stated to that board at the time of is application that he believed that his discharge was unfair considering his overall record. He also stated that he admitted to using marijuana during the occasions for which he tested positive and he was sorry for what he did. He went on to state that he was amazed at what effect two positive urinalysis could have on his career and admitted that he had brought on himself. He requested that the board consider the fact that he had straightened himself out and give him another chance.
The ADRB determined that his report of separation (DD Form 214) reflected the incorrect narrative reason for his discharge and changed it from "Misconduct – commission of a serious offense" to "Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct". The ADRB denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge on 21 July 1986.
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, desertion or absence without leave. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
Paragraph 14-12c (2) provides specifically for the separation of enlisted soldiers for misconduct based on the abuse of illegal drugs. It states, in pertinent part, that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct that may warrant separation action based on commission of a serious offense. In the event that there are mitigating factors, a single drug offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of misconduct and processed for separation. The commander makes the determination to process first-time drug offenders serving in the pay grades of E-1 to E-4; however, separation processing is mandatory for second-time offenders.
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. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
2. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the available facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant's contention that he was falsely accused of using drugs and finds it to be without merit and unsupported by the evidence of record.
4. 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.
5. 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
___ja ___ __rvo ___ __lb ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002082805 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/08/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/04/30 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200. CH14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | MISCONDUCT |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 686 | 144.6000/A60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003167
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. By an undated memorandum, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c. The evidence also shows that the applicant tested positive for THC as a result of testing on or about 15 May 1985, 45 days after he was promoted to SP5.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003091249C070212
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 November 2003 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003091249 On 4 January 1985, the applicant was notified that her commander intended to initiate action to separate her for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. On 12 March 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – drug abuse.
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 | CY2009 | 20090016336
The applicant requests that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to fully honorable. On 9 May 1986, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct. On 11 June 1986, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12(c) by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069319C070402
During one of the counseling sessions, the applicant admitted to the first sergeant, in the presence of a witness, that his friends at Fort Bragg had repeatedly used marijuana in his apartment and offered that as the basis for his positive urinalysis. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence presented, the board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of abuse of illegal drugs and recommended that he be discharged under other...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017679
On 22 January 1986, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for misconduct pattern of misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b and/or 14-12c. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009385
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 13 November 1979, for 3 years. On 18 June 1985, the applicants commander recommended the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d. The applicant was separated on 17 July 1985, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12d, Misconduct Drug Abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012155
In an email, dated 2 November 2006, the applicant states, in effect, that his command never imposed nonjudicial punishment upon him for his offense of marijuana use (a single offense); therefore, the appropriate actions of correcting his misconduct and allowing him a chance for rehabilitation were not taken. The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code JKK is Misconduct and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2). However, the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062935C070421
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 20 March 1985, the applicant’s company commander initiated discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, acts or patterns of misconduct.
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...