IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  29 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110010680 


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 her general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant makes no statement.

3.  The applicant provides a letter of recommendation.

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 record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 14 November 1989.  Upon completion of initial entry training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 76P (Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist).  The highest rank/grade she attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

3.  Her military service record reveals a disciplinary history that includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 13 May 1991 for wrongful use of marijuana which was detected by a urinalysis.

4.  On 5 August 1991, the applicant's unit commander notified her he was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct for wrongful use of an illegal drug (marijuana).  She was advised of her rights and the impact of the discharge.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification and requested consulting counsel and to be provided a copy of her separation packet.

5.  She consulted with legal counsel.

6.  The unit commander subsequently recommended that the applicant be separated from the service based on her illegal use of marijuana.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge under honorable conditions.

7.  The separation authority approved the applicant's separation and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He determined her service would be characterized as under honorable conditions and that she would be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 15 August 1991, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows:

* her service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general)
* she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c
* her narrative reason for separation was "misconduct/abuse of illegal drugs"

9.  The applicant provides a letter of recommendation rendered by the program coordinator for the Community Connections Grant Program located in East Lansing, MI, on 17 March 2011.  In this letter, the program coordinator praises the applicant's critical thinking skills, knowledge, and dedication to the mission of the program and the people in her community.  She states the applicant is an invaluable public servant with tremendous integrity, passion, capacity and willingness to invest in communities.

10.  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.

11.  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 date of expiration of term of service.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her record should be corrected by upgrading her discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and found to lack merit.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the statutes and regulations in effect at the time.  There is no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant's discharge accurately reflects her overall record of service.

3.  Based on her record of indiscipline, the quality of the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, she is not entitled to an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable 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 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)                                         AR20110010680



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110010680



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1