BOARD DATE: 1 March 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100023121
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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD).
2. The applicant states on the DD Form 149 to see attached statement, but there was no attached statement.
3. The applicant does not provide any additional documents 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 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 applicants record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) and he entered active duty on 30 January 1985. He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 19E (M48-M60 Armor Crewman). The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was Specialist (SPC).
3. On 5 December 1985, the applicant received a general counseling statement for a positive urine test result.
4. On 25 November 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongful use of cocaine.
5. On 8 December 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), for drug abuse. The unit commander cited the applicants substance abuse as the basis for the action.
6. On 8 December 1986, the applicant was advised of his rights and he completed a statement waiving his right to a personal appearance before a board of officers. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 9 December 1986, the separation authority approved the applicants separation and directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate. On 22 December 1986, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct drug abuse. He completed a total of 1 year, 10 months, and 23 days of active service.
8. There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 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. At the time, individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must have been processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. Those in pay grades below E-5 could have been processed after a first drug offense and must have been processed for
separation after a second offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
10. Paragraph 3-7a of the same regulation provides that an HD 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's contention was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation. All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. The applicant's record reveals a disciplinary history that includes a general counseling statement for being positive on a urine test, and an NJP for the wrongful use of cocaine. As a result, his record was not sufficiently meritorious to support the issue of an HD by the separation authority at the time of his discharge, nor is it sufficiently meritorious to support an upgrade of his discharge at this late date.
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) AR20100023121
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100023121
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025519
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 3 April 1986, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense and directed that he be issued a Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028206
On 21 March 1988, the applicant provided a statement to an investigator stating he had attempted to self refer himself to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) but the clinic was closed. On 15 June 1988, the discharge authority approved the discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - drug abuse, and directed the applicant receive an under honorable conditions discharge. There is neither any available evidence to substantiate the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007028
On 12 January 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed the applicant be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 18 January 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on drug abuse, and his service was characterized as under other than honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006439C071113
Jerome L. Pionk | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s wrongful use of Cocaine and for shoplifting. After carefully evaluating the evidence of record, it is determined that the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations at the time and that the character of his service is commensurate with his overall...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009742
On 21 February 1990, the applicant was discharged. Paragraph 6-5d, states that a Soldier will be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate regardless of his or her overall performance of duty, if the discharge is based upon limited use evidence. Under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-85, paragraph 6-5d, a Soldier will be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate regardless of his or her overall performance of duty, if the discharge is based upon "limited use" evidence.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000921
On 21 August 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 12c, for misconduct. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was discharged on 29 October 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, Section III for misconduct, with a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007212
On 15 January 1986, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that she was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Misconduct), based on commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs). e. The board recommended that the applicant be separated with a general discharge under honorable conditions and that the separation be suspended for a period of 4 months to allow for an...
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 | CY2012 | 20120007915
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 28 April 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, with either an HD or GD based on testing positive for cocaine on 26 February and 31 March 1987. The evidence of record also confirms the applicant's separation processing was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019806
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 14 April 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense and directed he receive a GD. On 30 September 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board, after careful consideration and review of the applicant's military records and all other available evidence,...