IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021003 


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 discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

* at the time of the incident he was very young and immature
* he did not realize or understand the seriousness or the ramification of a less than fully honorable discharge
* he did not realize the impact the type of discharge he received would have on his future employment goals or the stigma it would have among other Veterans
* he believes his overall military record should be considered and reviewed

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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 (RA) on 14 November 1985, in pay grade E-1.  He completed training as a light wheel vehicle mechanic.  He was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 14 May 1984.  He arrived in Germany on 19 May 1986.

3.  On 23 September 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for wrongful use of marijuana.

4.  He accepted NJP on 20 October 1986 for breaking restriction.

5.  On 22 October 1986, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b.  His commander cited the following as the basis for the recommendation for discharge:

* submitting a positive urinalysis indicating his illicit use of marijuana on 7 August 1986
* being apprehended by military police investigators for possession of hashish and drug abuse paraphernalia on 14 August 1986
* abuse of an American Express Teller Machine, knowingly overdrawing his account by approximately $1,400.00 in August 1986
* breaking restriction on 13 October 1986

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification for discharge on 22 October 1986.  On 27 October 1986, he waived his right to consult with counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 10 November 1986, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  The applicant departed Germany en-route to the U.S. on 7 December 1986.  He was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 December 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12b, for misconduct – drug abuse.  He had completed 1 year and 25 days of net active service this period.  He received a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The available records do not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 14 of the regulation 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 expiration of term of service.  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.  

	b.  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 contentions have been noted.  

2.  His records show he had NJP imposed against him twice for his acts of misconduct.  He submitted a positive urinalysis indicating use of marijuana; he was apprehended by military police investigators for possession of hashish and drug abuse paraphernalia; he abused an American Express Teller Machine by overdrawing from his account approximately $1,400.00; and he broke restriction.  

3.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, a discharge under other than honorable condition was normally considered appropriate.  He received a discharge under honorable condition.  Based on his overall record of service and his numerous acts of misconduct, the type of discharge he received is not too harsh.  

4.  The applicant's records show that he was 20 years old at the time he enlisted in the RA.  His youth and immaturity is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant's request should be denied.


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)                                         AR20110021003



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021003



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1