| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member | ||
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request that his discharge from the United States Army Reserve (USAR) be voided, and that he instead be transferred to the Retired Reserve in order to utilize his military benefits.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, in the enclosed self-authored statement, that he believes his case should be reconsidered because a full review is necessary to arrive at a fair judgment in his case. He states that the initial case summary provided a chronological history of the events that led to his discharge. However, a second drug test that he took, which would have proved his innocence, was not made available to the Board. He claims that his military record is not one of misconduct, but rather it is one that shows an individual who worked his whole life to move up. He states that based on his record, he should now be given the benefit of doubt, and he hopes the Board will look for the second drug test.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a Memorandum of Consideration (AR20020772949), dated 10 December 2002, which was prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of this case. In support of his reconsideration request, the applicant provides the enclosed self-authored statement. This is considered a submission of new evidence that requires reconsideration by the Board.
The applicant’s records contain a copy of a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 14 September 2000, which shows
that a urine specimen was obtained from the applicant on 20 August 2000, and it tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
The applicant was processed for separation and was separated on 15 March 2001, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, under the terms of his conditional waiver.
In its original decision on this case, the Board concluded that the applicant was properly and justly discharged in accordance with the governing regulation based on his use of illegal drugs. The Board also noted at the time that the applicant had completed over 20 qualifying years of service, and he remained eligible for retirement benefits that accrue to USAR soldiers with 20 or more qualifying years of service.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and it is concluded:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his discharge from the USAR be voided and that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve in order to utilize his military benefits. However, it finds insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant tested positive for THC and was discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations under the terms of his own conditional waiver. The Board finds no error or injustice in the separation process.
3. The Board considered the applicant’s contention that a second drug test proved his innocence. However, the evidence of record provides no information on a second drug test, and the applicant has failed to provide any independent evidence to support this claim. Thus, lacking evidence to substantiate this allegation, the Board concludes that there is no evidentiary basis for reversing the Board’s original determination in this case.
4. The Board finds the overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis to reverse its previous decision.
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
__RLD___ __KH___ __GJW___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AC2003087084 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/03/15 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 135-178 paragraph 7-11c1. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Abuse of Illegal Drugs |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1.338 | 136.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001053822C070420
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: Through counsel, that her name be removed from the subject block of Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Report of Investigation (ROI) #0012-00-CID-142-50897-5L2, dated 29 February 2000. The CID titled the applicant based solely upon her testing positive for marijuana use during a random drug test; however, the legal standard under Article 112a,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072949C070403
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge from the US Army Reserve (USAR) be voided and that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve in order to utilize his military benefits. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the USAR on 18 March 1971. The same regulation provides policy for the granting of retired pay to soldiers and former Reserve Component soldiers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130012747
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. His contention that records from the testing laboratory contained errors is noted; however, the records he provided clearly show they were administrative errors only and verified his specimen did test positive for marijuana on 4 June 1993.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1996-00259A
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluations and states that a perfectly decent laboratory says the specimen is tainted and the Air Force says the results are inconclusive. The results did not conclusively demonstrate that there was no match between the specimen and the collected DNA sample from the applicant. The AFIP/CME-DNA evaluation is at Exhibit...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011781
Counsel contends that the applicant subsequently retained the services of a North Carolina attorney to assist him in filing a request for reconsideration based on new evidence (that both urine specimens were collected on 12 August 1985 rather than on two separate dates as discussed by the ABCMR). On 24 October 1985, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (drug abuse). Evidence of record shows the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066022C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In...
USMC | DRB | 2015_Marine | MD1401585
Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214 The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214: Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, should read: "MISCONDUCT" The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022523
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states in accordance with Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)), if a Soldier volunteers for treatment to seek help (for drug or alcohol abuse), he or she should not receive an Article 15 or be reduced in rank nor should he or she be removed from active duty and/or the treatment program. The limited use policy does not apply to the following evidence: * A...
NAVY | DRB | 2010_Navy | ND1001507
Types of Documents Submitted/reviewedRelated to Military Service: DD 214:Service/Medical Record:Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Rehabilitation/Treatment: Criminal Records: Personal Documentation: Community Service: References: Department of VA letter: Other Documentation: Additional Statements:From Applicant: From/To Representation:From/ToCongress member: Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Additionally, there is no...
NAVY | DRB | 2015_Navy | ND1401743
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall remain UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS (GENERAL) and the narrative reason for separation shall remain SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY. ” Additional Reviews : After a document...