| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Ted S. Kanamine | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was involuntarily separated for the convenience of the government due to a reduction in force. He also asserts that his ability to serve was impaired by the use of drugs, alcohol, youth, immaturity, that the punishment he received was too harsh, that it was much worse than others received, that his command abused its authority by giving him a bad discharge, that his enlistment commitment was not fulfilled, that under current standards ghe would not receive the same kind of discharge, and that his record of service was such that less than a fully honorable discharge was not warranted.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was born on 27 December 1970 and enlisted in Atlanta, Georgia, on 21 May 1990, for a period of 3 years and training as a stinger crewmember.
He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 13 October 1990.
On 8 May 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly. His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.
He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 August 1991 and in October 1991, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty, for making a false statement to a superior noncommissioned officer and for disorderly conduct. His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.
He departed Korea on 19 November 1991 and was transferred to Fort Ord, California. On 30 January 1992, NJP was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana as detected by a urine sample submitted by him in Korea on 25 October 1991. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 20 February 1992, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense. He cited the applicant's disciplinary record and NJP for use of marijuana as the basis for his recommendation.
The applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 March 1992, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. He had served 1 year, 9 months and 22 days of total active service.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1994 requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he was unjustly discharged for the convenience of the government and was being denied the benefits that he had earned. The ADRB opined that his discharge was both proper and equitable; however, the board voted unanimously to change the narrative reason for his separation to reflect "Misconduct" instead of "Misconduct – Abuse of illegal Drugs."
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included abuse of illegal drugs and frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities. It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
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 contentions and finds them to be without merit. The evidence of record clearly indicates that he was discharged for his own misconduct and his record of service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
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
___tsk __ __mm___ ___kf ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003084706 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/01 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1992/03/12 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/ch14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Misconduct |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 626 | 144.6000/a60.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082471C070215
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. 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. Carl W. S. Chun Director, Army Board for Correction of Military RecordsINDEXCASE IDAR2002082471SUFFIXRECONDATE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004328
The applicant requests, in effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 8 May 1992, the applicant's company commander recommended he be separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 24 July 1992, the applicant was accordingly discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000799
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 16 June 1992, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. On 11 June 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
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 | CY2002 | 2002076069C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 13 August 1991, for a period of 3 years, training as a cargo handler and enrollment in the Army College Fund. However, the applicant was not truthful when he came into the Army in regards to his drug use activities and did not succeed in the rehabilitation program while in the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002185C070205
This memorandum stated that the applicant committed serious misconduct by wrongfully using marijuana, that this was his second drug related offense, and that he had written dishonored checks. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. The applicant received a general discharge for illegal drug use when most Soldiers who are separated under this provision receive an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140012116
The applicant requests upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge. On an unspecified date, the applicant's commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c, based on commission of a serious offense. The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005257
The applicant requests, in two separate applications, that his discharge under honorable conditions (general) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable based on his overall record of service and his desire to serve his country. He was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulation and, based on the nature of his offense, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009797C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 May 1993 the applicant was separated with a general discharge. On 9 August 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge, but did decide to change the narrative reason to simply, "Misconduct."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080012093
The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge based on clemency. On 20 April 1992, the Commanding General of U.S. Army Recruiting Command approved the applicant's waiver of his right to appear before an administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs. The...