IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 17 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110019100
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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states his discharge was unjust because he was never convicted by a court-martial.
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's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 29 December 1982. Upon completion of initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was specialist four/E-4.
3. His military service record reveals the first time he tested positive for use of a controlled substance, his unit was lenient and did not take disciplinary action against him based upon his promise not to do it again and the recommendation of his noncommissioned officer support channel. The applicant was command referred to the local Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) to undergo rehabilitation counseling and treatment. The applicant's drug abuse counselor opined the applicant would not benefit from further counseling because he refused to admit he had a problem. While still enrolled in ADAPCP, the applicant consented to a urinalysis and tested positive for use of a controlled substance again.
4. On 24 October 1984, the applicant's unit commander notified him 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 a controlled substance. He was advised of his rights and the impact of the discharge. He acknowledged receipt of the notification and requested consulting counsel.
5. On 30 October 1984, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant requested:
* Consideration of his case by a board of officers
* Personal appearance before a board of officers
* Consulting counsel and representation by counsel
6. On 1 November 1984, the unit commander recommended that the applicant appear before a board of officers convened to determine if he should be separated from the service based on misconduct, commission of a serious offense. The commander noted the fact that the applicant had no record of previous courts-martial convictions or nonjudicial punishment. The applicant's intermediate commanders concurred with the recommendation.
7. On 10 December 1984, the applicant appeared in person before a board of officers who considered his testimony and all of the evidence presented in his case in order to determine whether he should be separated for commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200. As a result, the board determined the applicant was unacceptable for further retention in the military service because of commission of a serious offense and recommended he be discharged from the service with the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.
8. On 27 December 1984, the separation authority approved the board's findings and recommendations and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and issued a General Discharge Certificate.
9. On 24 January 1985, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows:
* his service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general)
* he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c
* his narrative reason for separation was "Misconduct/Drug Abuse"
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 his record should be corrected by upgrading his discharge to an honorable discharge was carefully considered and found to lack merit.
2. The applicant's contention that he was never convicted by a court-martial is duly noted. However, 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 his 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 his overall record of service.
3. Based on his 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, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his 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 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) AR20110019100
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110019100
4
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001722
The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was issued a general discharge on 5 March 1993, under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, due to misconduct commission of a serious offense. There is no evidence in the available records to show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge under that boards 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows that after testing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004291
Although the complete facts and circumstances regarding the applicant's discharge, i.e., his complete separation packet, are not contained in his military records, on 29 October 1985 the applicant's commanding officer recommended that separation proceedings be approved for the applicant under the provisions of chapter 14 (Separation for Misconduct), Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. On 21 February 1986, the proper separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027955
U.S. Military Community Activity Bamberg memorandum, dated 29 April 1985, subject: Synopsis of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Rehabilitation Activities, shows the applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP Track I on 11 January 1985. On 31 May 1985, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007798
On 12 October 1984, he was notified that his immediate commander was initiating action to discharge him from the Army, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9. His commander cited his positive urinalysis tests results, recorded on 13 October 1983 and 27 June 1984, as the basis for declaring him a rehabilitative failure. On 12 October 1984, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001781
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001778
On 5 August 1987, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) due to misconduct for commission of a serious offense with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge. The commander cited the applicant's two DWI offenses. The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001293C070205
The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The separation code of "JKK" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "misconduct, such as abuse of illegal drugs" and the authority for discharge under this SPD was "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c(2). The additional separation code of "JPC" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "drug abuse – rehabilitation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080018575
Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. The applicant contends that his general, under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Records also show that he was discharged for the abuse of illegal drugs, which is a serious offense, and the applicant failed to provide evidence which shows that any...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012349
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 11 April 1986, the applicant's commander initiated elimination action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14-12, for misconduct drug abuse. _______ _ __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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027435
On 18 November 1982, his commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. His immediate command recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitative failure. The evidence shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse -...