IN THE CASE OF:    

		BOARD DATE:  30 October 2014	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004794 


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 under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.  

2.  He states his conduct and efficiency ratings along with his behavior and proficiency marks were good and his record of promotions showed he was generally a good service member.

3.  He provides no additional documents.  

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 24 June 1977 and he was discharged on 25 March 1981 for immediate reenlistment.  He reenlisted on 26 March 1981.

3.  His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he was promoted to staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6 on 7 June 1985.  His service record is void of his efficiency ratings and proficiency marks.

4.  On 4 November 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using marijuana on or about 24 September 1985.  

5.  On 17 December 1985, the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  The unit commander stated the applicant was identified as a drug abuser on 24 September 1985 through a urinalysis test. The urine samples provided by him contained chemical indications that he had used marijuana.  The applicant was advised of his rights.  On the same date, he acknowledged notification of the separation action.  

6.  He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for abuse of illegal drugs under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c and its effects.  He waived a board of officers and did not submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 16 January 1986, the separation authority waived rehabilitative requirements, approved the separation action, and directed issuance of a general discharge.  

8.  On 31 January 1986, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He completed 8 years, 7 months, and 7 days active military service.  

9.  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.

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.  An under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldier's overall record.  

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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 applicant contends his conduct and efficiency ratings along with behavior and proficiency marks were good.  However, his service record is void of evidence to support his claim.

2.  His service record shows he was promoted to SSG/E-6 during his second period of service.  However, he received an Article 15 for wrongfully using marijuana.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  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 met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty to warrant a general discharge.  

5.  His service record does not indicate the actions taken in his case were in error or unjust.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting his request for an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable 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)                                         AR20140004794





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004794



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1