IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  16 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110016181 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he used drugs to deal with his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that he got from serving in Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

3.  The applicant provides a one-page letter explaining his application, a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), and a copy of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision showing that he was granted 30% service connection for PTSD on 21 December 2009. 

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 on 31 July 1987 for a period of 4 years and training as a wire systems installer.  He completed his basic training at Fort Knox, Kentucky and his advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia before being transferred to Germany on 25 April 1988.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 September 1988.  

3.  Although the specifics are not present in the available records, it shows that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-2 on 22 November 1988 and on 1 December 1989, he was again advanced to the pay grade of E-3.  

4.  He departed Germany on 26 April 1990 for assignment to Fort Gordon, Georgia and he was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 December 1990.  He 
deployed to Southwest Asia in Support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm from 
31 October 1990 to 8 June 1991.

5.  Meanwhile he reenlisted on 29 April 1991 for a period of 4 years and assignment to the Army Information Systems Command – Europe.  

6.  On 5 September 1991, he was issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for refusing to submit to a drug-alcohol test and driving under the influence (DUI).  He was transferred to Belgium on 29 September 1991.

7.  On 30 July 1992, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He cited the applicant’s positive urinalysis for cocaine on 13 May 1992 as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant was advised of his right to consult with counsel and to submit his election statement within 7 days.  The applicant’s election statement is not present in the available records.

8.  On 13 August 1992, the commander submitted the recommendation for discharge and recommended that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 October 1992, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He had served 5 years, 2 months, and 
1 day of active service.

11.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

12.  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.  

13.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  Accordingly, the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate for the circumstances of his case.
  
3.   The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating when compared to the nature of his offense and his otherwise undistinguished record of service.  The applicant’s overall service, to include misconduct that occurred prior to his deployment, simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

4.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to grant his request to upgrade his 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)                                         AR20110016181





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110016181



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1