BOARD DATE: 22 May 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017130
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 to an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states he suffered with a drug addiction during his military service. He sought treatment, but was unable to get recovered. He requested to be discharged before he brought any shame on the military and/or himself. His discharge was a disciplinary action by the military, but was his own request due to his drug and alcohol addiction at the time. Since his discharge, he hit rock bottom and was arrested in 2004 for possession. The charge was dismissed on 20 May 2005. After completion of a 1-year court ordered drug rehabilitation program he has not only been clean and sober for almost 10 years, but he is a licensed minister.
3. The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), a completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), Order Dismissing Charge court order, and Graduation Certificate.
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 28 August 1984 for 3 years. He served as a single channel radio operator. On 24 January 1985, he extended his enlistment for 7 months. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 11 May 1985.
3. He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on/for:
* 4 May 1987 being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 11 February 1987
* 14 August 1987 wrongfully using cocaine
4. He received counseling between July and August 1988 for suspension of checking cashing privileges, being absent from physical training, and disobeying a lawful order.
5. On 29 July 1988, his command was notified of the revocation of his security clearance and ineligibility for his military occupational specialty.
6. On 30 August 1988, he was notified of suspension of his on-post driving privileges.
7. On 12 September 1988, he was issued an administrative reprimand for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, he acknowledged receipt of the reprimand, and elected to submit a rebuttal.
8. On 3 October 1988, he was notified of revocation of his on-post driving privileges. On 7 October 1988, he acknowledged the notification.
9. On 24 October 1988, he received counseling for being AWOL.
10. On 10 November 1988, he accepted NJP for absenting himself from his place of duty.
11. In his rebuttal, dated 15 December 1988, the applicant requested the reprimand be filed in his restricted record as he was planning to make the military a career. He stated he realized that he made a life endangering decision when he drove under the influence of alcohol. He was given a breathalyzer because of the smell of alcohol in his vehicle and on his breath. He was not an incapable drunk. He was laying an extra hard burden on his pregnant wife for her to drive him any place he needed to go. That was not fair to her and she should not have to suffer during her 8 ½ month of pregnancy with a decision he made at a bad time. He felt that was enough suffering on his part.
12. On 18 January 1989, the Deputy Commanding General, after considering the applicant's chain of command's recommendations, directed the reprimand be filed in the applicant's official military personnel file.
13. On 14 February 1989, the applicants company commander notified the applicant of proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Separation), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct consisting of a DUI, dishonored checks, revocation of security clearance, and record of counselings. The company commander recommended the applicant be issued a general discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.
14. On the same day, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and receipt of a general discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
15. On 18 January 1989, the separation authority approved his general discharge.
16. Accordingly, he was discharged in pay grade E-4 on 24 March 1989. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 24 days of net active service.
17. There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations for an upgrade of his discharge.
18. He provided copies of the following:
* Order Dismissing Charge court order, dated 20 May 2005, which shows charges were dismissed against him based on his successful completion of the Leon country Drug Intervention Program
* Graduation Certificate, dated 20 May 2005, from the Leon Country Drug Court
19. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. The regulation stated in:
a. Paragraph 14-12b - members are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.
b. Paragraph 3-7a - an honorable discharge was a separation with honor. The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the members service generally had met the standards of acceptance conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The evidence shows the applicant received multiple counseling's, two NJPs, revocation of his security clearance, and an administrative reprimand for a DUI during his period of service. His company commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, for a series of misconduct, with a general discharge.
2. It appears that he was separated in pay grade E-4 and issued a general discharge based on his overall record of service. Normally such service as his would have been characterized as under other than honorable conditions.
3. He provided insufficient evidence or a convincing argument to show the quality of his service warranted an upgrade of his general discharge.
4. Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. He was properly discharged in accordance with pertinent regulations with due process. Therefore, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general 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 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) AR20130017130
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017130
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017173
The applicant states, in effect: * while assigned in a Field Artillery unit at Fort Riley, KS he was sexually assaulted by two other members of his unit * these two members also forced him to take cocaine at the time of the assault * he was threatened with physical harm if he reported what had happened * as a result of taking the cocaine, he became addicted and, subsequently, came up positive on a unit urinalysis test * when he came up positive, he was given the choice of either facing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100008981
The applicant was accordingly discharged on 2 January 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the offence for which he was discharged and is appropriate for the applicant's overall record of military service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120003102
On 30 May 1989, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct pattern of misconduct. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of a pattern of misconduct was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511841C070209
APPLICANT STATES: That he completed the warrant officer entry course in December 1987, completed warrant officer technician training for the hawk missile system in December 1988, and received verification of military experience and training in March 1995. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was appointed a warrant officer. The applicants completion of a warrant officer entry course and a hawk missile technician course does not equate to an appointment as a warrant officer,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001559
On 4 April 1989, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation to discharge the applicant and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct based on commission of a serious offense (abuse of illegal drugs) and issued an Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. On 21 November 1990, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation for discharge of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100000824
The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge. On 28 October 1988, his intermediate commander reviewed the recommended separation action and recommended approval of the applicant's discharge with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 2 November 1988, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct -...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017940C070206
He elected to not waive his rights to military counsel, submitted statements on his behalf, expressed his wishes for an honorable discharge, and requested that copies of the documents be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation. There is no evidence in the available records which shows that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation. The applicant contends that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001167
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military service records by removing any and all records related to misconduct during his military service, a change to the reason of his discharge, and upgrade of the character of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 3 May 2000, the company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action to effect his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130017452
Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 4 May 2012, the unit commander, notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207280
The applicant’s commander submitted a recommendation for the applicant’s separation under chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200. The applicant’s commander testified that an Army Regulation 15-6 was done because of rumors of the applicant’s involvement with another woman, but there was no proof of misconduct; that the applicant was command directed to “D&A (drug and alcohol)” on 29 May 1987; that the applicant told him on 8 May 1987 that he had already been scheduled for an appointment; that...