RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 06 APRIL 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003094545


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson
Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member
Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


1. The applicant requests that her discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general or honorable.

2. The applicant states that her one act of poor judgment should not continue to hinder her. Had this occurred outside the military she would have been forgiven. Since her discharge she has been a productive member of society. Subsequent to her discharge, she obtained employment, married, and has three children. She has been involved in numerous community activities, to include the PTA and the 4-H organization. She is currently a physical education teacher in a school district in Mississippi. It has been her goal to set a better example than that during her last year in the Army. She has committed her soul and life to good service. She understands that her actions during her last year of military service were unacceptable, but feels that her good works since warrant an upgrade of her discharge. She and others are establishing a military veterans association to serve military veterans and their dependents.

3. The applicant provides a letter of support from a Member of Congress (MC).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 31 August 1976 and remained on continuous active duty until her discharge. She attained the rank of staff sergeant, received three awards of the Army Commendation Medal, three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, and numerous letters of commendation. Her evaluation reports show that she was an excellent Soldier.
2. In June 1982 the applicant was assigned to a support battalion in Alaska, first as a personnel management specialist, then upon her promotion, as a supervisor. A urinalysis test conducted, either in December 1985 or early January 1986, indicates that the applicant tested positive for cocaine use. On 30 January 1986 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for wrongfully using cocaine and was reduced to pay grade E-5. On 26 February 1986 she was barred from reenlisting.

3. On 18 February 1986 the applicant's commanding officer notified her that he was initiating proceedings to administratively separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.

4. The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that she had been advised of the basis of the contemplated action, its possible effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights. She waived consideration of her case by a board of officers. She made a statement calling attention to her many years of good, responsible, and loyal service to the Army, and her participation in numerous off duty events, indicating that she deserved a discharge of at least under honorable conditions.

5. A 3 February 1986 report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings, and met the requirements for retention in the Army. A 5 February 1986 report of medical examination shows that she was physically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 2 1. In the report of medical history that she furnished for the examination, she stated that she was in good health.

6. The applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army. On 18 March 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. She was discharged on 25 March 1986 because of misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.

7. 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, conviction 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. Paragraph 14-12c states that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct and that first time drug offenders in grades E5-E9 will be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for separation for misconduct.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. The applicant stated that she had been advised of the basis of the action to discharge her, its effects, her rights, and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving her rights. Nonetheless, she waived her right to have her case heard by a board of officers. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2. The applicant's good post-service conduct is noted, as evidenced by the support provided by a Member of Congress; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested. She betrayed the trust and confidence placed upon her. The characterization of her discharge was proper. She has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of her request.
BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ SK ___ __ LEM __ __ RLD __ DENY APPLICATION


The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  _____Stanley Kelley______
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003094545
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040406
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.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.