RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002271


      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. Jeanette McCants              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland Heflin                |     |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 general under honorable conditions
discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that his narrative
reason be changed.

2.  The applicant states that he was recently informed that he could apply
for a change in his discharge from general under honorable conditions to
honorable and he would like to do this so he might take advantage of his
veterans benefits.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 19 June 1987.  The application submitted in this case is dated
10 February 2006.

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 limitations 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 22 August 1985 for a
period of two years.  He completed basic training and advanced individual
training (AIT) at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Upon successful completion
of AIT, he was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheeled
Vehicle Mechanic).  He was assigned to Germany in February 1986.

4.  The applicant received an adverse counseling statement on 16 July 1986
for dishonored checks in the amount of $30.00 to the Army and Air Force
Exchange Service.

5.  The applicant was advanced to private first class on 1 August 1986.

6.  He tested positive for marijuana on 1 August 1986 and 5 September 1986.

7.  On 12 September 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully
using marijuana on or about 1 August 1986.  His punishment consisted of a
reduction to private E-2, a forfeiture of $167.00, extra duty for 14 days,
and restriction for 14 days (suspended and automatically remitted if not
vacated before 1 November 1986).  The suspension of 14 days restriction was
vacated on 17 October 1986.

8.  On 19 November 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 1 (sic)
September 1986.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to private E-1, a
forfeiture of $319.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days,
and restriction for 45 days.

9.  He tested positive for marijuana on 15 December 1986.

10.  On 18 December 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
under Article 15, UCMJ for operating a vehicle while drunk and in a
reckless manner by hitting the rear end of a vehicle in front of him.  His
punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $100.00 pay for 2 months, extra
duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days.

11.  On 15 January 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant of
separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 14-12 for abuse of illegal drugs and driving while intoxicated.
He was advised of his rights. He consulted counsel, waived consideration of
his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted statements in
his own behalf.  His statements are not available.

12.  On 28 January 1987, the applicant requested a conditional waiver.  He
consulted with counsel, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an
administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a
characterization of service no less favorable than a general discharge, and
did not submit statements in his own behalf.

13.  He tested positive for marijuana again on 2 February 1987.

14.  On 12 May 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for discharge with issuance of a general under honorable conditions
discharge.

15.  He departed Germany on 18 June 1987 and was discharged on 19 June 1987
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for
misconduct – drug abuse.  He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 28 days
creditable active service.  His DD Form 214 shows he was given a Separation
Program Designator (SPD) code of "JKK" (Misconduct – Drug Abuse).
16.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to
the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  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.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct
when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or
was unlikely to succeed.  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.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribed the specific
authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for
the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD codes
to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation in effect at the time
showed that the SPD code “JKK” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214
specified the narrative reason for separation as involuntary release or
transfer for “Misconduct – Drug Abuse” and that the authority for
separation under this separation program designator was “AR 635-200,
Chapter 14.”

19.  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).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant tested positive for
marijuana on four occasions.  He received three Article 15s for these
offenses and one Article 15 for driving while drunk.

2.  Considering the nature of the applicant's offenses it appears the chain
of command determined that separation under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct – drug abuse was
appropriate.

3.  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.

4.  After review of the evidence of this case, it is determined that the
applicant has not presented sufficient evidence which warrants changing his
general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

5.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the
evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation issued to him
was in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his
request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 19 June 1987; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 18 June 1990.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JM______  SF______  RH______  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  Jeanette McCants______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002271                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060824                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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