RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           8 July 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100675


      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             |
|     |Ms. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen Newman               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Gail Wire                     |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his under other than honorable conditions
discharge (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He also requests
correction of his records to show he held military occupational specialty
(MOS) 63D30 (Self-Propelled Field Artillery System Mechanic).

2.  The applicant states that he had a "dirty" urinalysis, was demoted from
pay grade E-6 to E-1 and was discharged with an UOTHC discharge in January
1986.  He states, in effect, that the incident happened a long time ago
when he was 25 years old.  At that time, he ran a Service Battery Battalion
Maintenance unit.  He is now 43 years old.  He has a family, has worked
with a good outfit and has done well.  He would just like to clean up his
past and feels that what the Army did was wrong.  He states that he never
used any drug and does not remember if he ever saw the Staff Judge
Advocate.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 27 January 1986.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 24 October 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  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 limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 1979 for a period
of three years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South
Carolina.  He later completed one station unit training at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma and was awarded MOS 13B (Cannon Crewman).  On 25 July 1979, he was
assigned to Battery C, 3rd Battalion, 35th Field Artillery in Germany as a
cannoneer.

4.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)
shows he was awarded primary MOS 45D (Self-Propelled Field Turret Mechanic)
on 1 September 1980.

5.  The applicant was discharged on 28 October 1981 for the purpose of
reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 29 October 1981 and was awarded a Selective
Reenlistment Bonus in MOS 45D.

6.  He departed Germany on 19 January 1982 and was assigned to B Battery,
1st Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Battalion at Fort Sill, Oklahoma as a
field artillery turret mechanic in duty MOS 45D.

7.  The applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious
service during the period 15 September 1982 to 10 December 1982.

8.  His DA Form 2-1 shows he was awarded secondary MOS 76C (Equipment
Records and Parts Specialist) on 25 January 1983.

9.  On 16 August 1983, the applicant was assigned to Service Battery,
1st Battalion, 94th Field Artillery in Germany as a self-propelled field
artillery system mechanic in duty MOS 45D20.

10.  The applicant was promoted to staff sergeant on 23 October 1984.  The
effective date would have been 1 November 1984, the first day of the
following month.

11.  On 6 March 1985, the applicant was awarded a second award of the Army
Good Conduct Medal.

12.  The applicant's DA Form 2A (Personnel Qualification Record – Part I)
prepared on 12 June 1985 shows his primary MOS as "63D30."

13.  The applicant tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) -
marijuana
on 15 July 1985.

14.  The applicant's personnel records show he received two Enlisted
Evaluation Reports (EER) during the period August 1983 through July 1985.
These reports show ratings of "125" based on a maximum total of 125 points
per report.  On the EER for the period ending July 1985, the rater's
evaluation stated that "SSG [applicant's name] is highly qualified, and
talented NCO.  He was the direct supervisor of the computerization of this
battalion's PLL, with his knowledge of PLL and TAMMS and his assistance in
the transition from manual to computerization made him an invaluable asset
to this section and the battalion."  On this same report, the endorser
stated that "Staff Sergeant [applicant's name] is a fine NCO whose
performance has been nothing short of excellent."

15.  On 23 August 1985, the applicant's company commander recommended
that he be barred from reenlistment based on positive results for the
urinalysis conducted on 15 July 1985.
16.  On 10 September 1985, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of
pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  The commander
cited as the basis for the proposed separation the applicant's urinalysis
conducted on 15 July 1985 which tested positive for THC.  The commander
advised him that it was possible that he would be discharged from the
service prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS) date with an UOTHC
discharge.

17.  On 12 September 1985, the applicant acknowledged notification of the
pending separation action, consulted with legal counsel, waived a hearing
by a board of officers, and submitted statements in his own behalf.
However, the applicant's statements are not available.

18.  In a 16 October 1985 letter of recommendation from the Battalion
Maintenance Chief of Service Battery, 1st Battalion, 94th Field Artillery,
he stated that he personally observed the performance of the applicant as
the Recovery Team Chief.  The Battalion Maintenance Chief stated that the
applicant displayed outstanding initiative, foresight, professionalism and
sound judgment.  He recommended that the applicant be released from the
United States Army with an honorable discharge.

19.  In a 21 October 1985 letter of recommendation from the Battalion Motor
Officer of Headquarters, 1st Battalion, 94th Field Artillery, he states
that the applicant's performance of duty had been singularly outstanding.
The Battalion Motor Officer stated that the applicant contributed much to
the battalion's maintenance program and recommended that he be considered
for an honorable discharge.

20.  On 24 October 1985, the intermediate commander recommended approval of
the recommendation for discharge.  He stated that the applicant made and
continued to make an outstanding contribution to battalion maintenance
operations during on-duty hours.  The intermediate commander recommended
that the comments of the applicant's section chief and the Battalion Motor
Officer be considered when determining the type of discharge he would
receive.  On
12 November 1985, the senior intermediate commander recommended approval of
the recommendation for discharge.

21.  On 8 December 1985, the general court-martial convening authority
directed that the applicant be discharged with issuance of an UOTHC
discharge and reduced the applicant to the lowest enlisted grade.

22.  Prior to his discharge, he underwent a separation physical examination
and a mental status evaluation and was found qualified for separation.

23.  On 27 January 1986, the applicant was discharged from active duty with
an UOTHC discharge.  He completed 6 years, 10 months, and 21 days total
active military service.

24.  Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in
Specialty) on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the entries:  "45D10, SP
FLD ARTY TURRET MECH 05 YEARS, 04 MONTHS, 76C20, EQUIP RECORDS/PARTS 03
YEARS, 00 MONTHS."

25.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

26.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established
policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of
misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil
authorities.  In pertinent part, it stated that a soldier in grades E-5
through E-9 would be processed for separation (though not necessarily
separated) for a first-time drug offense.  A discharge under other than
honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a soldier discharged
under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general
discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a
general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable
discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under
this provision of regulation.

27.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) states,
in pertinent part, when the separation authority determines that a soldier
is to be discharged from the Service UOTHC, they will be reduced to the
lowest enlisted grade.

28.  Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.
In pertinent part, it states that an honorable discharge is a separation
with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality
of the soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable
conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so
meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.
 Where there have been infractions of discipline, the extent thereof should
be considered, as well as the seriousness of the offense(s).  A soldier
will not necessarily be denied an honorable discharge solely by reason of a
specific number of convictions by court-martial or actions under the UCMJ
Article 15.  It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance
which should be considered the governing factor in determination of
character of service to be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation
from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose
military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant
an honorable discharge.

29.  Army Regulation 635-200 also states that the type of discharge and
character of service will be determined solely by the military record
during the current enlistment from which the soldier is being separated.
The evaluation must be based on the overall period of service and not on
any isolated actions.

30.  Figure 2-63d in Army Regulation 611-201 (Military Occupational
Classification and Structure), in effect at the time, listed the career
progression for career management field (CMF) 63 (Mechanical Maintenance).
This figure showed that personnel in MOS 45D20 in the rank of sergeant
progressed to MOS 63D30 at the rank of staff sergeant.

31.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation
of the DD Form 214.  It states that the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the
soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a
brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from
active duty, retirement or discharge.  In pertinent part, it directs that
the primary military occupational specialty (PMOS) and all additional MOSs
served in for a period of one year or more, during the soldier’s continuous
active military, service will be entered in item 11 (Primary Specialty on
the DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant tested positive for THC-
marijuana in July 1985 and was barred from reenlistment in August 1985.

3.  Aside from the one isolated incident for which the applicant was
discharged, he has no other record of indiscipline.

4.  The evidence of record shows he received excellent EERs, award of the
Army Achievement Medal, and the second award of the Army Good Conduct Medal
during the period of service under review.  In addition, the Battalion
Maintenance Chief and Battalion Motor Officer highly commended the
applicant's duty performance.

5.  The applicant’s service does not meet the standards of honorable
service as defined in Army Regulation 635-200.  Although he was a
noncommissioned officer, considering his overall service record, both
performance and disciplinary during his second enlistment, it appears that
a general discharge would have been more appropriate than a discharge
UOTHC.

6.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 shows he was awarded PMOS 45D in September
1980.  He would have held this PMOS until he was promoted to staff sergeant
on 23 October 1984 at which time MOS 45D would have been withdrawn
completely.  However, his DD Form 214 incorrectly reflects his PMOS as
45D10 in item 11.  Therefore, it would be equitable to amend the
applicant's DD Form 214 to show he held PMOS 63D30 for 1 year and 3 months.


BOARD VOTE:

KN______  GW______  WP______  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected:

      a.  by showing he was discharged on 27 January 1986 with a general
discharge in the rank of staff sergeant (effective date of pay grade 1
November 1984);


      b.  by deleting the entry "45D10, SP FLD ARTY TURRET MECH
05 YEARS, 04 MONTHS," from item 11 on his DD Form 214; and


      c.  by adding the entry "63D30, SELF-PROPELLED FIELD ARTILLERY SYSTEM
MECHANIC, 1 YEAR, 3 MONTHS to item 11 on his DD Form 214.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an honorable discharge.




            Kathleen Newman_______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100675                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040708                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19860127                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, chapter 14-12c               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Misconduct-drug abuse                   |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT IN PART                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.0000                                |
|2.                      |100.0500                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |