BOARD DATE:	  5 February 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140009630 


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 to honorable.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  Since his release from the military, he has been an exemplary citizen.  He has maintained employment for 14 years and has a fiancée and 5-year old son.  He has an exemplary work history with no arrest or convictions since turning 21 years old.  He is currently attending school to become a certified electrician and welder.  He also has a certified therapy dog that he does community service with at schools and nursing homes.

	b.  He would like his military record to reflect his overall character based on his hard work and accomplishments that he has obtained since his discharge at the age of 19.

	c.  He recently bought a new home and it was the first time his discharge had an effect on his civilian life.

	d.  He made a mistake.  His situation was simply one of youth, inexperience, and naivety that led him to party with friends while on Christmas break.  Upon his return to his unit he failed a drug test.  He was not offered any options other than a general discharge.



3.  The applicant provides:

* résumé
* certificates

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 was born on 25 September 1979.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 September 1999 for 4 years.

3.  In March 2000, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for possessing and using marijuana.

4.  On 23 March 2000, he was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  The unit commander cited his positive urinalysis for marijuana as the basis for his pending separation.

5.  After consulting with counsel, he waived his rights.  He also acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 11 May 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

7.  On 18 May 2000, he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) for misconduct-commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.  He completed 8 months and 3 days of creditable active service.

8.  In June 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.

	a.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

	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.  The applicant contends his mistake was simply one of youth, inexperience, and naivety.  However, he was almost 20 years of age when he enlisted.  Regardless, age is not a sufficiently mitigating factor.  There is no evidence indicating he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military terms of service.

2.  The evidence of record does not support his contention he was 19 years old when he was discharged.  He was almost 21 years old when he was discharged on 18 May 2000.

3.  He contends he has been an exemplary citizen since his discharge.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for changing a service characterization.

4.  His contention that his general discharge recently had an effect on his civilian life was noted.  However, in 2000 he acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he were issued a general discharge.

5.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  He had an opportunity to submit a statement wherein he could have voiced any concerns; however, he elected not to do so.

6.  Since a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for the authority and reason for his discharge, the fact that he was given a general discharge under honorable conditions was generous.

7.  His brief record of service during his enlistment included one NJP for using drugs.  As a result, his record of service was not so meritorious as to warrant 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 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)                                         AR20140009630



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140009630



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1