BOARD DATE:	  1 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009434 


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 general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that after completing his training he was assigned to jobs that did not relate to his training.  He got mixed up with people who smoked marijuana and it rubbed off on him.  He states he was a kid who made a mistake; however, he worked hard and learned a lot about the military and he believes he deserves an honorable discharge.  He also states that he has been clean of marijuana for almost 28 years and he would like his kids to see that his service was honorable.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 was born on 10 December 1964 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 January 1983 at 18 years of age for a period of 3 years and training as a radio teletype operator.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia, before being assigned to Fort Ritchie, Maryland, on 24 August 1983 for duty as a radio teletype operator.

3.  On 5 January 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana as revealed by positive results of a urinalysis conducted on 29 November 1983.

4.  The applicant was reassigned to the Military District of Washington on 2 April 1984.

5.  On 14 September 1984, the applicant was apprehended by the military police for assaulting a female at the Noncommissioned Officers Club on Fort Myer, Virginia.  He was subsequently released to the custody of his unit.

6.  During the period 20 September 1984 to 21 March 1985, NJP was imposed against him on at least three occasions for reckless driving and failure to go to his place of duty.

7.  On 27 March 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to bar him from reenlistment based on his disciplinary record, poor attitude, display of non-caring, and failure to respond to counseling regarding opportunities to better himself.  The applicant declined the opportunity to submit matters in his own behalf and the appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 4 April 1985.

8.  On 14 May 1985, the applicant was declared a rehabilitative failure of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program.

9.  On 22 May 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service for a pattern of misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 
14-12b.  He cited the applicant's disciplinary record, conduct and performance, and inability to maintain an attitude at a professional and military level as the basis for his recommendation.

10.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, there is no evidence in the available records to show he ever did.

11.  On 15 July 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

12.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions due to a pattern of misconduct on 22 July 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  He completed 2 years, 6 months and 11 days of active service.

13.  There is no evidence in the available records to show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

15.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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's contentions regarding his discharge have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the repeated nature of his offenses.  The applicant's overall service simply did not rise to the level of a discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.

4.  In the absence of evidence showing that an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.

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 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)                                         AR20110009434



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009434



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1