IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  21 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140015278 


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 her under honorable conditions (general) discharge.

2.  The applicant states it has been more than 6 months since her discharge.  She joined the Army with the intent to serve and protect our country.  She served with an honorable intention and she was an outstanding Soldier with a positive outlook.  She has also been an upstanding citizen since her discharge. 

3.  The applicant does not provide any evidence. 

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's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 February 1985 and she reenlisted on 17 February 1988.  She was trained in and held military occupational specialty 81Q (Terrain Analyst). 

3.  She served in Hawaii from August 1985 to June 1988.  She was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.  She also attained the rank/grade of specialist four/E-4. 

4.  On 24 June 1985, she participated in a unit urinalysis and her urine sample tested positive for marijuana.  

5.  On 9 October 1985, she was referred to the Schofield Barracks Counseling Center for a medical evaluation after she had tested positive for marijuana.  She subsequently participated in drug education classes and underwent counseling. 

6.  On 20 October 1985, she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana.  

7.  On 10 January 1988, she was apprehended for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.  Her commander suspended her driving privileges.

8.  On 28 January 1988, she participated in a unit urinalysis and her urine sample tested positive for marijuana.  

9.  On 25 February 1988, she accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for wrongfully using marijuana.  

10.  On 19 November 1987, she again accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being drunk and disorderly.

11.  On 19 May 1988, the applicant's immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her for misconduct – commission of a serious offense – in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c.  The immediate commander cited the applicant's two positive urinalysis tests and recommended a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

12.  On 20 May 1988, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate her.  She consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge she could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to her.  She waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board and/or personal appearance before a board contingent and she elected to submit a statement in her own behalf.  She acknowledged she:

* understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to her
* understood she could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under Federal and State laws as a result of the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions
* understood if she received a discharge characterization of less than honorable, she could make an application to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the ABCMR for an upgrade; but, she understood that an act of consideration by either board did not imply her discharge would be upgraded  

13.  On 23 May 1988, the applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against her due to misconduct – commission of serious offense in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c.  Her battalion commander recommended approval with her service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  

14.  On 31 May 1988, subsequent to a review for legal sufficiency, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge, with her service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  The applicant was discharged accordingly on 14 June 1988.  

15.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms she was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, with her service characterized as under honorable conditions (general).  She completed 3 years, 3 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service. 

16.  There is no indication she applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 was 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.

18.  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.  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's records show she committed a serious offense (twice testing positive on a urinalysis).  Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  Her discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with acceptable personal conduct and performance by Army personnel.  Her misconduct and failure to respond positively to counseling by members of her chain of command diminished the quality of her service.

3.  Contrary to her belief that she was an outstanding Soldier, the evidence of record clearly shows that despite counseling and drug classes she continued to abuse drugs.  She was also apprehended for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor.  These are not the qualities of an outstanding Soldier. 

4.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under circumstances similar to hers.  However, it appears the chain of command considered her overall service and determined a general discharge is more appropriate.  

5.  Nevertheless, the applicant's service was not satisfactory and insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  Therefore, she is not entitled to the 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)                                         AR20140015278





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140015278



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1