IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 January 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007841
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.
2. The applicant states he is seeking veteran's benefits and would like to be afforded a change of the character of his service.
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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 19 February 1991. He was advanced to pay grade E-4 in April 1993 and reenlisted on 28 September 1993.
3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice on 23 May 1996 for illegal use of cocaine.
4. On 23 June 1996 his command initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), misconduct - illegal use of drugs.
5. The applicant acknowledged the separation action and that a separation under general conditions could result in substantial prejudice in civilian life. He waived his rights to representation by counsel and to submit a statement on his own behalf.
6. The discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a GD.
7. The applicant was discharged on 20 August 1996 with a GD. He had 5 years, 6 months, and 2 days of creditable service with no lost time.
8. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit for review.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It provides the following:
a. Paragraph 3-7a states an honorable discharge (HD) is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldiers service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.
b. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge (GD) 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. Paragraph 14-12(c), deals with separation for drug abuse, and states that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service. The regulation in effect at the time stated individuals in pay grades E-5 and above would be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. Those in pay grades below E-5 could also be processed after a first drug offense and must have been processed for separation after a second offense. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. Entitlement to veterans benefits is not within the preview of this Board nor is it normally considered a basis for granting relief.
2. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor any argument in support of his request.
3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
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) AR20130007841
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130007841
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040009797C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 18 May 1993 the applicant was separated with a general discharge. On 9 August 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge, but did decide to change the narrative reason to simply, "Misconduct."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007064
The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge (HD). On 30 December 1992, the discharge authority approved the discharge proceeding and directed he be discharged with a GD. The honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the Soldiers service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110023353
The applicant states in 1994 he failed his drug test and requested assistance in the form of counseling. On 8 June 1994, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and directed he receive a GD. _______ _ __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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080000895
The following members, a quorum, were present: The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 9 May 1989. Absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that would suggest the authority and reason for his discharge were unjust, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006609
The applicant requests: a. his general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable; and b. 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. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by adding the already-awarded Ranger Tab to the applicant's DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140004531
She waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a GD. On 30 May 1996, after reviewing the discharge packet and the board proceedings, the separation authority directed her separation under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for serious misconduct with issuance of a GD. Although a UOTHC discharge would normally have been appropriate, an administrative separation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006444
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to upgrade his general under honorable conditions character of service to honorable and change his narrative reason for separation to something more favorable. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2)(a), by reason of "misconduct abuse of illegal drugs" with a character of service of under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008212
There is no evidence in the available record that shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Although he was age 17 when he enlisted, he successfully completed training.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012888
There are no medical treatment records on file that indicate the applicant suffered from any disqualifying physical or mental condition that warranted his separation processing through medical channels at the time of his discharge processing. There is no evidence indicating the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record is void of any medical treatment records that show the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011028
Soldiers would be processed for discharge on discovery of a drug offense. The applicant contends, in effect, that his discharge under honorable conditions should be upgraded to honorable because he did not have multiple cases of misconduct and did not sign anything that stated he was barred from reenlistment. _______ _ 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.