IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 11 October 2012
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120007049
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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
2. The applicant provides no explanation.
3. The applicant provides no documentary 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 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 July 1982 for a period of
4 years. He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantryman). He attained the rank of specialist four on 1 June 1984.
3. DA Forms 2496 (Disposition Form) show he tested positive for marijuana on:
* 6 November 1985
* 12 December 1985
4. On 11 March 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for using marijuana.
5. On 13 April 1986, he was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, for misconduct (commission of serious offense). The unit commander cited he had tested positive on 2 urinalysis tests.
6. On 15 April 1986, he consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued. He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
7. On 24 April 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the applicant be discharged under honorable conditions (a general discharge).
8. He was discharged under honorable conditions on 5 May 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12d, for misconduct (drug abuse). He completed a total of 3 years, 9 months, and 23 days of creditable active service.
9. There is no evidence in the available records that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The regulation states that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
11. 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 applicants record of service included one NJP for using marijuana. As a result, his record of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. There is insufficient evidence to warrant an honorable discharge.
2. His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge directed and the reasons were therefore appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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) AR20120007049
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120007049
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017679
On 22 January 1986, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for misconduct pattern of misconduct in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12b and/or 14-12c. He acknowledged he: * understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him * understood he could be ineligible for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025519
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 3 April 1986, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of chapter 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, for commission of a serious offense and directed that he be issued a Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014624
The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he entered active duty this period on 21 July 1977 and he was discharged on 28 November 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12d, for misconduct based on drug abuse, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. The applicant contends, in effect, his general under honorable conditions discharge should be upgraded to an honorable discharge based upon a review of his military personnel records. The evidence of...
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 | CY2014 | 20140004794
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. Although a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, it appears the separation authority determined the applicant's overall service...
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 | CY2011 | 20110024241
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). It states that an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The applicant argues his discharge should be changed to HD due to his immature actions regarding his declination of further rehabilitation treatment and illegal drug abuse while serving on active duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016458
On 5 August 1988, the applicants company commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct. He was discharged on 18 August 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged due to a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120018501
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 April 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120018501 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that the charges against him be removed from his records. There is no evidence in his official records to show that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that boards 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014203
He understood that if he received a discharge certificate/ character of service which is less than honorable, he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, he realizes than an action of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded. On 31 January 1986, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph...