RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:    I


      BOARD DATE:        28 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018223


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |



      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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 that his under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was told that the discharge would
be automatically upgraded after six months.  He should not have received
the UOTHC since he was never convicted or found guilty of any crime and
does not believe he was in the wrong.

3.  The applicant provides copies of five letters of character describing
the applicant as a humble and caring person, a good father and loving
husband, and an honest hard working employee; and his 8 August 1985 DD Form
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel did not present any additional arguments, contentions, or
documentation beyond that set forth in the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant enlisted with a three year active
service obligation and entered active duty on 22 November 1976.

2.  On 22 August 1979 he reenlisted for four years.

3.  On 10 October 1979, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) for one day.  His punishment
was forfeiture of $128.00 pay per month for one month, 14 days of extra
duty, and reduction in rank to private first class (PFC).  The reduction
was suspended for 120 days; however, the suspension was vacated and the
reduction ordered to be executed on 18 October 1979.

4.  The applicant received a waiver to reenlistment and reenlisted on 8
August 1983 in the rank and grade of specialist four (SP4).

5.  Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division Permanent Orders 66-46 awarded
the applicant the Army Achievement Medal on 5 April 1984.

6.  On 16 July 1985, the applicant received NJP for willfully disobeying a
direct order from a superior noncommissioned officer (NCO).

7.  A United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Criminal
Investigative Division (CID) Report of Investigation, conducted at Camp
Indian, Korea and dated 29 April 1985, states that PFC M___ A____S____ and
K____ S____ C___ (a Korean national) were arrested for wrongful possession
and distribution of methamphetamine.  During the investigation the
applicant was identified by both of the above named individuals as source
for their methamphetamine.

8.  The applicant and a U__ C__ K__ (a Korean national) were apprehended by
CID  and Korean officials.  A search of the off post residence where they
were arrested resulted in the seizure of 18 grams of methamphetamine.  U__
C__ K__ indicated that he knew of the drug sales but was not personally
involved and that the methamphetamine seized belonged to the applicant.

9.  During the investigation it was found that in 1978 the applicant had
been the subject of an investigation for wrongful possession of marijuana
at Fort Ord, California.

10.  On 19 June 1985 the company commander forwarded a preferred charge
against the applicant and recommended trial by a general court-martial.

11.  An Article 32, UCMJ, investigator was appointed on 27 June 1985.

12.  Other than the CID Investigation Report and the Article 32
recommendation, the record contains no documentation related to the
applicant's drug charge and/or his discharge processing.

13.  Although the discharge documentation is not of record, the evidence of
record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  In the absence of information to the contrary, the
Board is required to presume all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process.

14.  The applicant was discharged on 8 August 1985 under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 with a narrative reason for separation
of for the good of the service.  His service was characterized as under
other than honorable conditions.

15.  He had 5 years, 11 months, and 16 days of service for this period with
2 years, 9 months, and 21 days of prior active service.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The regulation requires that the Soldier's written request include
acknowledgment that they understand the elements of the offense/s charged
and are guilty of the charge/s or of a lesser included offense/s.  A
discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered
appropriate.

17.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets
forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A
punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 112a; wrongful
use, possession, or distribution of amphetamine.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the discharge processing documentation is not of record; in
accordance with regulation the applicant was required to acknowledge he was
guilty of the charges.

2.  He has provided no documentation to corroborate his contention he was
not guilty of the drug possession charge.

3.  The applicant's contention he was told that his discharge would be
automatically upgraded is without merit.  There is not now nor has there
ever been any authority to grant an automatic upgrade of this type of
discharge.

4.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the
discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations
applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate
with the nature of the charge that resulted in his discharge.

5.  The letters of character are noted but do not show that the applicant's
post service conduct and achievements are so meritorious as to outweigh the
seriousness of the offense that resulted in his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LDS___  __AM___  _PMS___  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.




                                  __     Linda D. Simmons _____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018223                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060928                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19850808                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 . . . .                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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