IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 10 July 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017507
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 was young and he should not have to continue to carry this discharge based on bad decisions he made when he was young. He is still a deserving veteran who served his country.
3. The applicant does not provide any additional evidence in support of his application.
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 8 July 1981 at 18 years of age.
3. On 31 July 1984, the applicant and other Soldiers of his unit submitted to a unit urinalysis. On 5 September 1984, the applicant's test results came back positive for drugs (drug type not identified in the notification letter).
4. A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 17 September 1984, shows a bar to reenlistment was initiated as a result of the applicant's misconduct as follows:
* on 28 November 1983, acceptance of an Article 15, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful appropriation
* proven illegal drug offender
* counseling on 12 occasions during the period 5 April 1983 through 8 September 1984
5. On 18 September 1984, his Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was approved.
6. On 1 October 1984, the applicant's immediate commander initiated discharge action based on his commission of a serious offense (positive urinalysis).
7. On 17 October 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him.
8. On 1 November 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 November 1984. He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 8 days of creditable active service.
9. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary
infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. 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 appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
b. 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. His record shows he was afforded multiple opportunities to conform to standards. There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their term of military service.
2. The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
3. In the absence of evidence showing his separation was inequitable or unjust, there is no 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) AR20130017507
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017507
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050016712C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. 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. Since the applicant's discharge proceeding are not in the available records the Board can not determine what, if any, rehabilitation actions were taken.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016531
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 | CY2010 | 20100020604
The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The panel's report entitled "Review of Urinalysis Drug Testing Program," dated 12 December 1983, concluded that the testing procedures used by all laboratories were adequate to identify drug abuse and found no significant evidence of false positive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021414
The applicant provides a Department of Army letter, undated, subject: Correction of Military Records, Positive Urinalysis Tests during the Period April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983. Based on the panel's findings that a number of previously reported positive urinalysis test results were not scientifically or legally supportable, a team of chemists and attorneys have reviewed all available records of positive urinalysis tests reported from April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983 by each...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014369
He was recommended for administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged by reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010423
The applicant states he was discharged from the Army after a positive urinalysis test. The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions by reason of being a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Based on his record of ADAPCP failure and positive drug test, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007798
On 12 October 1984, he was notified that his immediate commander was initiating action to discharge him from the Army, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9. His commander cited his positive urinalysis tests results, recorded on 13 October 1983 and 27 June 1984, as the basis for declaring him a rehabilitative failure. On 12 October 1984, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003332
He acknowledged he was guilty of the charges or lesser included charges and that, if his request for discharge is accepted, he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. He stated the applicant had received NJP on 13 May 1983 for possession and use of marijuana. On 25 January 1984, the separation authority, a major general, approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022846
On 10 May 1984, his commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, for misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs. On 7 June 1984, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct and directed the issuance of an Under Other Than...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012492
The immediate commander cited the specific reason for this action as the applicant's poor potential for rehabilitation for alcohol or drug abuse and continued abuse rendered him an alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 26 July 1983, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and recommended a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...