BOARD DATE:	  9 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006663 


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 a change to the narrative reason for separation on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

2.  The applicant states the governing regulation supports a change to the narrative reason for her separation.

3.  The applicant provides an extract to the governing regulation in support of her request.

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 21 August 1991.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (motor transport operator).  The applicant was advanced to the rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4 on 21 August 1991 and this is the highest rank/grade she attained while serving on active duty.

3.  The applicant's disciplinary history includes her conviction by a special court-martial for violating Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by wrongfully using marijuana between 18 May and 17 June 1992.  The resulting sentence was a forfeiture of $100.00 per month for 4 months, confinement for 4 months, and reduction to private (PV1)/E-1.

4.  The unit commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c(2) (Commission of a serious offense, drug abuse).  The unit commander cited the applicant's wrongful use of marijuana between 7 June and 17 July 1992 as the basis for the proposed separation action.  The unit commander recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and of the rights available to her in connection with the action.  The applicant refused to complete and sign the election of rights statement related to this counseling.

6.  On 12 April 1993, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) and directed the applicant receive a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 4 June 1993, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time shows she completed 1 year, 6 months, and
4 days of creditable active service with 106 days of time lost due to confinement.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 shows the entry "Misconduct - Abuse of Illegal Drugs."

8.  On 26 February 2000, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge.  On 3 November 2000, the ADRB determined the applicant's discharge was proper.  However, the board found the discharge inequitable as to characterization based on the applicant's generally acceptable performance and conduct that mitigated her misconduct and voted to upgrade the characterization 


of her service to an honorable discharge.  It also found the reason for her separation was inequitable under current standards that provided to list only "Misconduct" without additional comment for members separated under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  Accordingly, the applicant was issued a new DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 June 1993 that shows her characterization of service as "honorable" and her narrative reason for separation as "misconduct."

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policies, standards, and procedures for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating personnel for misconduct because of minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for change of her narrative reason for separation has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated with a general discharge by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs on 4 June 1993.  It further confirms that on 3 November 2000, the ADRB found the applicant's discharge was proper.  However, it voted to upgrade the general discharge to an honorable discharge and to change the narrative reason for separation from misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs to misconduct under current standards.  As such, the ADRB's upgrade action was based on equity considering the applicant's overall record of service and change to her narrative reason for separation based on current standards at the time.

4.  The evidence of record fails to show any apparent procedural error related to the applicant's discharge processing.  However, even if this were true as claimed by the applicant, it would be applicable only to characterization of service and would not impact the narrative reason for separation.  As a result, there is no evidence of error or injustice related to the applicant's separation processing.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20120006663



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006663



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1