Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130000901
Original file (20130000901.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	
		BOARD DATE:	  1 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130000901 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states we were all young at one time in our lives and have made mistakes.  He knows he made a mistake, but is requesting an upgrade of his general discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharged 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 on 14 July 1982, completed training, and was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman).

3.  On 5 May 1983, the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal for meritorious achievement during the period 18-22 April 1983.

4.  The applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, as follows:

	a.  on 25 October 1983, for possession of marijuana; and

	b.  on 20 July 1984, for illegal drug use (marijuana).

5.  On 23 July 1984, the applicant's command imposed a bar to promotion/
advancement to private/E-2.

6.  The documentation related to his separation processing is not included in the available records.

7.  On 21 September 1984, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14.  He completed 2 years, 2 months, and 8 days of creditable service with no lost time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.

	b.  A general discharge is a separation under honorable conditions issued to a Soldier whose military record was satisfactory but not so meritorious as to warrant an honorable discharge.

	c.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  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 considered appropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).  Paragraph 2-9 states the ABCMR begins consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant had satisfactorily completed training and was awarded a personal decoration prior to his drug charges.  His prior satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve and indicates he was neither too young nor immature.

3.  Neither the mere passage of time nor normal good citizenship in and of itself is sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his 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 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)                                         AR20130000901



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130000901



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110002291

    Original file (20110002291.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 8 May 1984, the applicant's company commander notified him of his intention to take action to discharge him for commission of a serious offense based on his two positive tests for wrongful use of marijuana. On 17 May 1984, the applicant's commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 14, due to the commission of a serious offense – illegal drug use. On 11 September 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086678C070212

    Original file (2003086678C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027955

    Original file (20100027955.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 20110001872

    Original file (20110001872.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant provides copies of his enlistment contract, personnel qualification record, an award order, two records of proceedings under Article 15, his separation orders, and DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 31 October 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14 (Misconduct), paragraph 14-12b, based on a pattern of misconduct with his...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110021224

    Original file (20110021224.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 July 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110021224 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his bad conduct discharge (BCD) to a general discharge (GD). A review of the available record does not show that the applicant ever petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000151

    Original file (20090000151.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence shows the applicant was advanced to the rank/pay grade of private/E-2 on 2 December 1983. On 3 December 1984, the applicant's commander notified him he was initiating action to eliminate him from the service prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13. The evidence shows the applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of private/E-1 on 9 January 1985 under the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016531

    Original file (20140016531.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A letter, dated 7 March 1984, from Headquarters, U.S. Army Support Command, HI, Fort Shafter, HI stated the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for a positive urinalysis for marijuana on a unit sweep conducted 22 November 1983. It was recommended he be separated under the provisions of Chapter 13 or 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel). There was no separation action taken at that time.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000019

    Original file (20090000019.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant non-concurred with the counseling, stating, in effect, that he had been in the military for 9 months and was still adjusting to military life. On 7 May 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance. The commander cited the applicant's previous counseling for unsatisfactory performance and stated that all attempts to counsel and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013450

    Original file (20130013450.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 January 1985, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct - commission of a serious offense, and reduced to the lowest enlisted grade. A letter, dated 17 July 2013, from an individual who has known the applicant for 30 years. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130005558

    Original file (20130005558.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable. On 13 August 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a DD Form 794A (Discharge Certificate Under Other Than Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends, in effect, that his discharge UOTHC should be upgraded to honorable because he was young, scared, and made poor decisions.