| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Larry C. Bergquist | Member | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to show that he was discharged in the pay grade of E-3 and that he receive back pay and allowances, with interest, for promotion to the pay grade of E-4.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he enlisted in the pay grade of E-1 on 1 December 1982 and on 1 September 1983, he was advanced to the pay grade of E-3. On 4 August 1983, he was selected to furnish a urine sample during a urinalysis, which came back positive for marijuana while he was deployed from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Seneca Army Depot, New York. As a result, he was reassigned to the motor pool and upon his return, he was transferred to a transportation unit. He goes on to state that in the normal course of promotion, he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 in September 1984; however, because of the urinalysis results, he was not promoted to the pay grade of E-4 until 1 March 1985. He continues by stating that he only received E-4 pay for 2 months and he was administratively separated in June of 1985. He further states that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him which reduced him from the pay grade of E-3 to the pay grade of E-2, which should have been from the pay grade of E-4 to pay grade E-3 and contends that since the urinalysis was subsequently determined to be invalid, he should have been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 on time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted on 2 December 1982 for a period of 3 years, training as a military policeman and a cash enlistment bonus. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on 27 April 1983. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 1 June 1982 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 September 1983.
Although all of the specifics are not available, it appears that the applicant tested positive for marijuana during a urinalysis conducted on 4 August 1983. The results were returned while the applicant was deployed in support of Operation Athena. There is no record of any nonjudicial punishment (NJP) being imposed against the applicant for the positive urinalysis; however, the record shows that he also deployed to Grenada, West Indies, in support of Operation Urgent Fury during the period of 3 January to 7 April 1984 and upon his return to Fort Bragg, he was reassigned to a transportation company effective 21 May 1984.
On 27 August 1984, the applicant applied to this Board for reinstatement to duty as a military policeman and deletion of all references to a positive urinalysis administered on 4 August 1983, which had been declared as not scientifically or legally supportable by a "Blue Ribbon" panel of experts in toxicology and drug testing.
On 3 May 1985, NJP was imposed against him for possession of marijuana. His punishment consisted of a reduction from the pay grade of E-3 to the pay grade of E-2, extra duty and a forfeiture of pay.
On the same day (3 May 1985), the applicant's commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment based on his NJP. The applicant declined the opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf and the bar to reenlistment was approved by the battalion commander on 14 May 1985.
On 20 May 1985, the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-2(b), due to his perceived inability to overcome the circumstances that led to his bar to reenlistment. The appropriate commander approved his request on 23 May 1985.
On 5 June 1985, the Board approved his request to delete all references to the 4 August 1983 urinalysis from his records and denied his request to be reinstated as a military policeman.
Accordingly, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-2 on 21 June 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. He had served 2 years, 6 months and 20 days of total active service.
A review of his records fails to show any promotion instruments which promoted the applicant to the pay grade of E-4 while he was on active duty.
Army Regulation 600-200, in effect at the time, provided for the promotion of enlisted personnel to the pay grade of E-4. It states, in pertinent part, that promotion to the pay grades of E-2, E-3 and E-4 are subject to the concurrence of the assigned commander and that commanders who had no authorizations for promotion to the pay grade of E-4, based on the assigned strength and limitations imposed by the Department of the Army, may promote any soldier with 18 months time in grade. The minimum time in grade for promotion to the pay grade of E-4, without a waiver, was 6 months and the minimum time in service was 24 months, without a waiver.
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 Board has noted the applicant's contention that he would have been promoted to the pay grade of E-4 in September 1984 has been noted by the Board and found to be without merit. The minimum time in service without a waiver was 24 months, which would have been in December 1984. However, promotion to the pay grade is not an automatic entitlement because all promotions required the concurrence of the assigned commander and the Board finds no evidence to suggest that the commander unjustly denied him his promotion.
3. It also appears that the NJP was properly imposed against him and that he was properly reduced from the pay grade of E-3 to the pay grade of E-2.
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
___lb ___ ___be___ ___ra ___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085394 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/07/10 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 307 | 129.0500/RESTORE PAY GRADE |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that they defer to the recommendation of AFLSA/JAJM concerning removal of the Article 15 and AFPC/DPPPAB concerning removal of the APR. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, BCMR Appeals and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed the application and states that applicant requests the contested APR...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013699 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. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021414
The applicant provides a Department of Army letter, undated, subject: Correction of Military Records, Positive Urinalysis Tests during the Period April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983. Based on the panel's findings that a number of previously reported positive urinalysis test results were not scientifically or legally supportable, a team of chemists and attorneys have reviewed all available records of positive urinalysis tests reported from April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983 by each...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007169
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050007169 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. In his original application (Docket Number AC9412971, which was administratively closed by letter dated 20 February 1996) due to his records being unavailable), he additionally requested "restitution of pay between E3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005722C071029
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. On 10 May 1985, the applicant’s commander advised him he was being considered for elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. On 7 June 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069847C070402
The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged because of an urinalysis that tested positive for illegal drugs. On 26 July 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021949
His evidence shows when he retired from the military, personnel at the Corps Adjutant General's (AG) office, Fort Bragg, NC knew his address in Fayetteville, NC and the letter dated "2 May 1986" from DAPC-MSP-E, United States Army Military Personnel Center should have been forwarded to his address; c. It is his firm belief that the letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 1 October 1983, which was improperly filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) because the filing had not been directed...
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 | CY2011 | 20110003475
On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action for his discharge pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for his continued drug and alcohol abuse and lack of response to rehabilitation services. On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 with a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003698
There are no orders or other evidence in the applicant's military personnel records that shows he was promoted to pay grade E-5. The applicant contends that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show he was promoted to pay grade E-5 because he was recommended for promotion, but when he was reassigned his records were lost and, as a result, he was not promoted. c. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-5 during the period of service under review.