IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 July 2008
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080005723
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded.
2. The applicant states, in effect, that his general under honorable conditions discharge should be changed to honorable.
3. The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of this application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. 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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant's records are incomplete; however, there is sufficient evidence available to show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 December 1981 for a period of 3 years. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71M (Chapel Activities Specialist). On 24 October 1984, the applicant was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment. On 25 October 1984, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army.
3. On an unknown date, the applicant tested positive for cocaine.
4. The record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using cocaine between 14 September 1987 and on or about 14 October 1987. His punishment consisted of reduction to the rank of private first class/pay grade E-3 (reduction suspended until 28 May 1988), forfeiture of $437.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days. The suspension was vacated on 10 December 1987.
5. On 8 August 1988, the applicant accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for assault upon another Soldier by striking him in the face and leg with a dangerous weapon (aluminum bat), with the means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. His punishment consisted of reduction to the rank of private/pay grade E-2, forfeiture of $175.00 ($125.00 suspended to 3 February 1989), extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days.
6. On 28 September 1988, the unit commander notified the applicant of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. He was advised of his rights. The applicant acknowledged notification of separation action. He waived his right to consult with legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 29 September 1988, the intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - drug abuse.
8. On 5 October 1988, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense with issuance of a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.
9. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 13 October 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c. He completed 6 years, 10 months, and 12 days of net active service for this period under review.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), 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 chapter 14 for misconduct.
11. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention that his discharge should be upgraded was carefully considered and determined to be without merit.
2. Although the applicant's service records are incomplete, evidence of record clearly shows that he accepted non-judicial punishments for drug use and aggravated assault on another Soldier. Additionally, his records do not show any significant acts of valor.
3. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under chapter 14 for misconduct. It appears the separation authority determined that the applicant's overall service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant recommendation of an honorable discharge, but it was sufficient to warrant a general discharge.
4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicants rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. The record further shows the applicants discharge accurately reflects his overall record of undistinguished service. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted, or the evidence available, that the type of discharge issued to him was in error or unjust. Accordingly, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for discharge are appropriate considering all the facts of the case. As a result, there is no basis to amend the applicant's separation document as requested.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____x___ ___x____ __x_____ 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.
____________x_____________
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080005723
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080005723
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000981C070206
On 28 September 1987, the applicant's unit commander recommended that a bar to reenlistment be imposed against him for the two nonjudicial punishments under Article 15 he received on 21 May 1987 and 24 September 1987. The applicant was discharged on 12 July 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) for misconduct commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050000981C070206
On 7 June 1988, 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. The applicant was discharged on 12 July 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000824
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 28 October 1988, his intermediate commander reviewed the recommended separation action and recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 2 November 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009286
Although many of the documents in the applicant's separation packet are undated, they indicate that the applicant's commander informed him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c(2)b (commission of a serious offense - second time drug offenders), Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for wrongfully using cocaine on two occasions. He also understood that if he had less than 6 years of total...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021484
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 May 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021484 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable or a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009109
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicants record of service included nonjudicial punishment for using cocaine. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004240
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 22 September 1989, the applicant was discharged from active duty, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029989
On 30 December 1987, he was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct abuse of illegal drugs. On 12 January 1988, his company commander recommended that he be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge for a serious offense, misconduct (illegal use of drugs) under the provisions of paragraph 14-12(c), Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120013106
The applicants military record shows he enlisted in the DEP on 12 March 1985. On 17 November 1988, the applicants company commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separations), chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense. The separation authority approved his discharge and he was discharged on 8 February 1989, under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for Misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019081
In his statement in his own behalf, the applicant essentially stated that he had done a lot of wrong for which he was very sorry, that he never did drugs as a civilian, but that he started using drugs a few months after being with his unit. The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. It also shows that he was discharged for the abuse of illegal drugs, which is a serious offense, and the applicant failed to provide evidence which shows...