BOARD DATE: 10 April 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110020199
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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.
2. He states he believes his discharge was unjust because he was given a urinalysis that was not properly handled in the proper chain of custody, and he was not given the opportunity to acknowledge that the seal of the urine collection container was legal and proper.
3. He provides no additional documentary evidence in support of this application.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. His military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 September 1977. He completed training and was awarded the military occupational specialty of 13B (cannon crewman).
3. He served continuously through reenlistments until his separation. The highest rank/grade he held was staff sergeant/E-6.
4. His records contain two counseling forms indicating he was counseled on 25 April and 8 May 1984 due to his living area in the barracks being found in a poor state. Drawers from his desk were on top of the wall locker, the floor was filthy, and his bunk was not stockaded.
5. On 30 May 1984, he was given a letter of reprimand for continual failure to maintain his living area. The letter of reprimand indicated he had been counseled on several occasions by the first sergeant regarding the standards required of all Soldiers residing in the barracks.
6. A DA Form 2496 (Disposition Form), dated 16 July 1984, indicated laboratory analysis of a urine specimen submitted by the applicant reflected THC (marijuana) indicating use during a period ranging from approximately 6 hours to 2 weeks prior to collection of the sample. This form states that because the urine was collected under conditions which appeared to be covered by the Limited Use Policy the lab report should not be used to support Uniform Code of Military Justice action or on the issue of characterization of service in separation procedures.
7. A urinalysis custody report record is not available for the Board's review.
8. On 30 July 1984, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Section III, paragraph 14-12c, due to commission of a military/civilian offense carrying a punitive discharge under the Manual for Courts-Martial. He was advised of his rights.
9. On 29 August 1984, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. He was reduced from the grade of E-6 to sergeant/E-5.
10. On 21 September 1984, he was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for the commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200, and its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of a waiver of his rights. He chose not to submit a statement on his own behalf. He waived his rights in conjunction with this consultation.
11. On 24 September 1984, his commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14c, Army Regulation 635-200. He was being recommended for discharge because of misconduct for abuse of illegal drugs. His commander certified that as of that date there was no drug or alcohol abuse related information contained within the discharge packet that fell within the purview of the exemption policy of Army Regulation 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program).
12. On 12 October 1984, the separation authority directed that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, by reason of commission of a serious offense and the issuance of a general discharge.
13. On 29 October 1984, he was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he completed 7 years, 1 month, and 16 days of active military service.
14. There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
15. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. The version in effect at the time, stated specific categories included a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), commission of a serious offense, and abuse of illegal drugs. Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. However, the separation authority could direct a general discharge if such was merited by the Soldier's overall record.
16. An honorable discharge was a separation with honor and entitled the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization was clearly inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. His records show he was counseled and he was given a letter of reprimand for continual failure to maintain his living area in the barracks. He tested positive for use of marijuana and he accepted nonjudicial punishment for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.
2. The Board starts its consideration with a presumption of regularity, i.e., that what the Army did was correct. The burden of proving otherwise is the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contention that his urinalysis was not properly handled.
3. The available evidence confirms his rights were protected throughout the discharge process. Based on his commission of a serious offense, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. A general discharge would have been warranted based on his non-drug related misconduct alone. Therefore, he is not entitled 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) AR20110020199
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20110020199
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511029C070209
It recommended that he be discharged with a general discharge. Thereafter, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation and the applicant was separated from the service with a general discharge certificate. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected: a. by showing that the period of service of the individual concerned terminating on 7 October 1994 was characterized as honorable and by issuing him a new Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004608
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of "Misconduct" with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, a separation code of "JKK," and an RE code of "3." Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designators) states that separation codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069319C070402
During one of the counseling sessions, the applicant admitted to the first sergeant, in the presence of a witness, that his friends at Fort Bragg had repeatedly used marijuana in his apartment and offered that as the basis for his positive urinalysis. After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence presented, the board found that the applicant was undesirable for further retention in the military service because of abuse of illegal drugs and recommended that he be discharged under other...
NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01107
Accordingly, the President, Naval Discharge Review Board, directed a document review that was conducted on 030602 before a five-member board. Attempted to observe Applicant one more time to allow him to comply with the CO's order after still refusing to provide a sample, the CO ordered that Applicant be escorted to medical for a blood sample to be taken. In the Applicant’s case, the Board found that the urine sample that determined the Applicant used cocaine and marijuana was collected as...
NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00114
ND04-00114 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031022. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. I knew someone who worked there and for this reason he hated me and told me “we don’t want your kind in this Navy.”
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011781
Counsel contends that the applicant subsequently retained the services of a North Carolina attorney to assist him in filing a request for reconsideration based on new evidence (that both urine specimens were collected on 12 August 1985 rather than on two separate dates as discussed by the ABCMR). On 24 October 1985, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (drug abuse). Evidence of record shows the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086915C070212
The applicant's section sergeant testified that he was totally against drug use. During the conduct of the board of officers, which voted to separate him from the service with an UOTHC, the unit commander testified that the reason the applicant was being recommended for separation was because it was mandated by regulation; the applicant was serving in pay grade E-2 and a second time drug offender and the regulation mandated that he be processed for separation. The applicant's section...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012693
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 4 October 1985, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to drug abuse based on positive urinalysis. The available evidence clearly shows that the applicant tested positive for marijuana use.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110023866
Applicant Name: ????? During this process her unit changed out commanders. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; a self-authored-statement, dated 9 November 2011; documents from the applicant's separation packet, 47 pages; an application for health benefits (VA Form 10-10EZ), the Deapertment of Veteran Affairs, 4 pages.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025287
On 27 April 1988, the applicant's immediate commander, CPT MJS, notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs. On 20 June 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct -...