RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 April 2007
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014764
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. Gerard W. Schwartz
Acting Director
Mr. Michael L. Engle
Analyst
The following members, a quorum, were present:
Ms. Linda D. Simmons
Chairperson
Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann
Member
Mr. Scott W. Faught
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 honorable.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that his performance evaluations reflected his excellent job performance, good conduct, and professionalism. He received one letter of commendation for performance in the REFORGER training exercise in the Federal Republic of Germany. He further states that his errors were the ways of a boy. He has changed now that he is a man and has not been in any trouble since. He considers himself a good citizen.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), a Certificate of Achievement dated 23 January 1986; and three letters of support from a former employer and friends.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 18 August 1986, the date of his discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 26 September 2006.
2. On 15 March 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational 52D1O (Power Equipment Mechanic).
3. On 7 October 1985, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 30 days extra duty.
4. On 18 June 1986, the applicant received NJP for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included reduction to private, pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $319.00 pay for 2 months (1 month suspended), and 30 days extra duty.
5. On 30 June 1986, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The applicant was twice found to have wrongfully used marijuana within 1 year.
6. On 1 July 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. In his statement, he contended that he was a good Soldier who had two bad experiences but felt that he was capable of overcoming his mistakes and be a better Soldier. He further stated that he would seek help to better himself.
7. On 6 August 1986, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.
8. Accordingly, on 18 August 1986, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 4 days of creditable active service.
9. On 5 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The record shows two serious offenses of drug use within a year.
2. The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
4. The applicants good post-service conduct is noted. However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated and excessive acts of indiscipline during his military service.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__LDS __ __JCR __ __SWF__ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
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.
___ Linda D. Simmons___
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
CASE ID
AR20060014764
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED
20070405
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19860818
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, ch 14. . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.
144.6000
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065513C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The commander stated that the applicant’s history of misconduct violated acceptable The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082805C070215
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. The applicant requests...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062116C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He also acknowledged that he may make application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for an upgrade of his discharge and that an act of consideration by either board does not imply that his discharge will be upgraded. The Board also notes that the applicant acknowledged at the time of his discharge he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086915C070212
The applicant's section sergeant testified that he was totally against drug use. During the conduct of the board of officers, which voted to separate him from the service with an UOTHC, the unit commander testified that the reason the applicant was being recommended for separation was because it was mandated by regulation; the applicant was serving in pay grade E-2 and a second time drug offender and the regulation mandated that he be processed for separation. The applicant's section...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004358
On 4 September 1985, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense (use of illegal drugs). The first vote resulted in recommendations by two board members to retain the applicant; by one board member to issue a General Discharge Certificate; and by two board members to separate him under other than honorable conditions. However, in this case the evidence showed that the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002185C070205
This memorandum stated that the applicant committed serious misconduct by wrongfully using marijuana, that this was his second drug related offense, and that he had written dishonored checks. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. The applicant received a general discharge for illegal drug use when most Soldiers who are separated under this provision receive an under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075194C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013919
On 14 June 1988, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for misconduct - commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs. In July 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - commission of a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | AR20050014597C070206
On 1 July 1974, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-4, for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. He was transferred to Germany on 9 September 1982, reenlisted on 15 August 1984 for a period of 6 years and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 November 1984. There is no evidence in the available records to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100000028
Applicant Name: ????? Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No...