IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  26 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100024930 


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 an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his records are correct; however, he is requesting an upgrade due to the circumstances of his situation at the time.

   a.  He states he served in the U.S. Army from 17 September 1985 to
17 September 1991 during the Gulf War.  He was young, going through some marital problems, and he smoked some marijuana.  As a result, he tested positive on a urinalysis test.

   b.  After he was discharged, he realized the magnitude of the mistake he made and decided to change his life.

   c.  He got out of the volatile relationship he was in, obtained employment at Cray Research that had a random drug testing program, and worked there for four years without any issues.

   d.  He then attended a technical college and obtained his commercial driver's license, which he used to obtain part-time employment throughout his career.

   e.  He attended another technical college, graduated with honors, and received his Federal Aviation Administration Airframe and Power Plant license.  He also completed a program for electronics/avionics and earned his Associate of Arts degree.
   f.  He obtained employment with the Experimental Aircraft Association and also Air Wisconsin Airlines (United Express) where he worked as an avionics technician for five years and advanced to lead mechanic.  He then obtained a part-time job with Landmark Aviation and served as lead mechanic/inspector, avionics, and avionics inspector.  He worked in other positions and during the period of his employment he was subject to mandated random drug programs.

   g.  He then attended Flight Safety school, became a master mechanic on the Sikorsky S92 Helicopter, and worked as lead inspector with Greystone, Inc. in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

   h.  He has been married now for 19 years and has two children.  He has no criminal record, believes he has changed his life for the better, and would greatly appreciate an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides copies of two letters of recommendation and his
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 17 September 1985.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty    11B (Infantryman).  He was promoted to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 on  1 December 1987.

3.  The applicant reenlisted in the RA for a period of 2 years on 10 June 1988.  He reenlisted again on 5 December 1989 for a period of 3 years and extended his 3-year reenlistment commitment to a period of 3 years and 8 months.



4.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in:

   a.  item 5 (Oversea Service) he served in U.S. Army Europe (Germany) from 12 July 1990 through 16 September 1991;

   b.  item 9 (Awards, Decorations and Campaigns) the Army Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with (M-16) Rifle and Grenade Bars, Army Good Conduct Medal (1st Award), Army Achievement Medal, and National Defense Service Medal; and

   c.  item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) that he was reduced to private (PV1)/pay grade E-1 on 14 May 1991.

5.  Three DA Forms 5180-R (Urinalysis Custody and Report Record), dated
15 March, 9 April, and 11 April 1991, show the applicant's urine specimens (collected on 6 March, 28 March, and 2 April 1991)  tested positive for possible THC [tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active chemical in marijuana].

6.  On 7 May 1991, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongfully using marijuana on three occasions (i.e., between 5 February and 6 March 1991, 7 February and 28 March 1991, and 29 March and 2 April 1991).  His punishment consisted of reduction to PV1 (E-1), forfeiture of $376.00 pay for 2 months, 45 days of restriction, and
45 days of extra duty.

7.  The applicant's company commander notified him that he was recommending him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-12c, due to commission of a serious offense.  The commander cited the applicant's positive urinalysis as the basis for the recommendation.  The applicant was informed of his rights and that he could receive a general discharge.  

8.  The applicant consulted with counsel and waived consideration of his case by a board of officers contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

9.  On 21 August 1991, the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to commission of a serious offense with a general discharge.  On 9 September 1991, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, on 17 September 1991, the applicant was discharged with service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  He had completed 6 years and 1 day of creditable active service.

11.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  A letter of recommendation from Colonel R--- L. F--- III, U.S. Army (Retired), dated 2 September 2010.  He states his support for the applicant has been validated daily for over the past year that the applicant served with him as an independent contractor to a maintenance and training contract that Sikorsky Aircraft Company has with the Ministry of Interior of Saudi Arabia.

       (1)  The applicant served as the Quality Assurance Specialist and Technical Inspector to a large fleet of helicopters that include the official very important person helicopters for the King of Saudi Arabia and other key officials.

       (2)  He attests to the applicant's character, commitment to family, and contributions to our society and Nation.  He adds the applicant is dependable, committed, compassionate, and a concerned citizen.  He also notes that the applicant runs successful hunting and sporting stores in his hometown.

       (3)  He states the applicant is tireless in the pursuit of excellence in his work and life.  The applicant has clearly rectified his mistake as a young man over the years as demonstrated by his impeccable behavior and character.  He adds that he believes it to be the right decision to upgrade the applicant's discharge.

   b.  A letter of recommendation from Mr. Gary M. M---, dated 23 September 2010.  He states he is a Regional Supervisor in the Office of Veteran Services, Division of Employment and Training, State of Wisconsin, and he also served as the State Commander for the Disabled American Veterans.

       (1)  He has known the applicant since he was a boy growing up in the inner city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  He states the applicant has risen above the less-than-desirable home life he had in a dysfunctional family.  He graduated from high school and joined the U.S. Army.

       (2)  He states he is aware of the applicant's six years of military service during which he faced personal challenges of a separation and divorce from his spouse, 
and also that the applicant made some bad decisions that led to a failed drug test.

       (3)  He states the applicant has made positive changes in his life and is a productive member of society.  He summarizes the applicant's pursuit of his education and record of employment.

       (4)  He concludes that the applicant made a mistake a long time ago and has demonstrated his ability to correct his mistake and move forward.  He highly recommends upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel:

   a.  chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse.  It 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.  chapter 3, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his general discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to fully honorable based on his overall record of military service, and his post-service educational achievements and personal conduct.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on abuse of illegal drugs was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  In addition, the type of discharge directed and the reasons for it were appropriate and equitable.



3.  The applicant's contentions and supporting documents were carefully considered.

   a.  The applicant attained the rank of SP4 (E-4), he earned the Army Achievement Medal, and the first award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He served on active duty nearly 5 years and 5 months prior to the three incidents that formed the basis for his discharge and that appear to have occurred during a one-month period.

   b.  Following his discharge, the applicant pursued a clear path to improve his opportunity to be a productive member of society.  He earned educational qualifications that enabled him to obtain employment in the aviation industry and he has been successful in his civilian career where he is subject to random drug testing.

   c.  Two individuals who have had management responsibilities in government and who know the applicant attest to his post-service character, behavior, and work ethic, and strongly recommend upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.

4.  In view of all of the foregoing, it would be appropriate at this time to upgrade the applicant's character of service to show he was honorably discharged.

BOARD VOTE:

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by issuing the applicant a DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate) and 


issuing him a new DD Form 214) to show he was separated with an honorable characterization of service.




      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20100024930



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100024930



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1