RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           31 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100860


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Sloane                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, an upgrade of his general, under
honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged based on a
urine sample that was not his.  He claims that he requested an Inspector
General (IG) investigation, but had to obtain authority for the release of
information from the Department of the Army (DA) IG.

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of a
Freedom of Information (FOI) packet (Case Number NH1-020112).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that served on active duty in the Regular
Army from 14 May 1986 until 9 May 1989, at which time he was honorably
discharged at the expiration of his term of service.  At the time, he held
the rank of specialist (SPC) and had completed 2 years, 11 months and 26
days of active military service.

2.  On 22 August 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Hawaii Army National
Guard (HIARNG).  He completed school training in and was awarded military
occupational specialty (MOS) 67U (Helicopter Repairer).

3.  The applicant’s record also shows that on 10 September 1998, he was
promoted to the rank of sergeant and that he earned the following awards
during his military service:  Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon,
National Defense Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, Noncommissioned
Officer Professional Development Ribbon, and Aircraft Crewmember Badge.

4.  The applicant’s record is void of a separation packet containing all
the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing.  The
record does include a copy of a 1st endorsement to a Request for
Conditional Waiver Request-Separation, dated 2 February 2000.  This
document is signed by the commander of the HIARNG, a brigadier general, and
contains his recommendation that the applicant’s request for a conditional
waiver and his separation with a GD be approved.  There is also a copy of a
2nd endorsement to this same request on file.  It contains The Adjutant
General of the HIARNG’s approval of the applicant’s request for a
conditional waiver and separation with a GD.
5.  The record also contains a properly constituted separation document
(NGB Form 22).  This document confirms that the applicant was separated
from the HIARNG with a GD on 2 February 2001.  The authority for the
separation was paragraph 8-26(2), National Guard Regulation 600-200 and the
reason for separation was misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of an IG report (NHI010112) which
indicates, in the synopsis, that the IG had coordinated with the
applicant’s unit and the
Military Personnel Office (MILPO) to ensure that all evidence was properly
provided to him and that his case was handled expeditiously.

7.  On 5 November 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board, after carefully
reviewing the applicant’s case, determined his discharge was proper and
equitable.  As a result, it voted to deny the applicant’s request for an
upgrade of his discharge.

8.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes the standards, policies,
and procedures for the management of Army National Guard (ARNG) enlisted
soldiers.  Chapter 8 contains the policy for the separation of enlisted
ARNG soldiers.  Paragraph 8-26 contains guidance on discharging soldiers
from the ARNG and from the Reserve of the Army.  Paragraph 2-26e provides
the authority to separate soldiers for misconduct, which includes the abuse
of illegal drugs.  It states, in pertinent part, that first time drug
offenders in the rank of sergeant or above or those who have completed 3 or
more years of service must be processed for discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that he was unjustly discharged for abuse of
illegal drugs based on a urine test that was not his and the supporting IG
packet he provided were carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support his claim.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of all the facts and circumstances
concerning events that led to a discharge from the Army.  However, the
record does contain endorsements confirming the applicant’s GD for abuse of
illegal drugs was approved under the terms of his own conditional waiver
request.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is concluded that all
requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3.  Further the record contains a properly constituted NGB Form 22.  This
document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and
provides a presumption of government regularity in the discharge process.

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JNS ___  _JRS____  _RLD___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




            __JOHN N. SLOANE_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100860                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/08/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2001/02/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Abuse of Illegal Drugs                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]