IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 October 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100010613 


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 that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge. 

2.  The applicant states he was young at the time of his discharge.  Since his discharge he has lived an honorable and mature life and he is an asset to his community.  He has made some efforts to change and better his life.  He has taken classes dealing with life and social skills needed to become a productive citizen.  He became a Christian and has gotten married.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 military personnel records show he enlisted, at the age of 18,  in the Regular Army on 3 September 1985 for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty of 19E (M48-M60 Armor Crewman).  

3.  On 9 January 1986, the applicant was assigned to C Company, 1st Battalion, 34th Armor at Fort Riley, KS.  His record of promotions and reductions shows that on:

* 3 November 1987 he was promoted to specialist four/pay grade E-4
* 19 February 1988 he was reduced to private first class/pay grade E-3
* 3 March 1988 he was reduced to private/pay grade E-1

4.  The applicant's records of disciplinary actions and his discharge processing package were not available for review.  The exact circumstances surrounding his discharge are not available.

5.  On 19 April 1988, the applicant was discharged by reason of misconduct - drug abuse under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  He had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 17 days of active service that was characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

6.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.

7.  References:

	a.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph
14-12c of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service.  Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  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 issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	b.  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 member’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.

	c.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

	d.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his discharge under other than honorable conditions should be upgraded to an honorable discharge because he was young at the and has since lived an honorable life.

2.  The applicant’s age at time of enlistment was noted.  However, many Soldiers were enlisted at a young age and went on to complete their enlistments and receive honorable discharges.  Therefore, the age of the applicant cannot be used as a reason to change a properly issued discharge.

3.  Although the applicant's separation package was not available it is presumed that the Army's administrative processing of the applicant for discharge is correct. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

4.  The applicant's statement concerning his post service achievements and conduct were noted.  However, good post service conduct alone is not normally sufficient for upgrading a properly issued discharge.  

5.  In view of the above, there is insufficient basis to upgrade the applicant's discharge to either an honorable or general discharge.


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)                                         AR20100010613



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100010613



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1