BOARD DATE:	  2 June 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140016531 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his service can be characterized as honorable except for one isolated incident.  He used marijuana one time and tested positive on a drug test.  He was very young and should have known better.  He knows better now.

3.  The applicant provides no 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.  On 26 June 1981, at the age of 18, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 51K (Plumber).  On 26 January 1983, he was assigned to Company C, 84th Engineer Battalion, Schofield Barracks, HI.

3.  On 2 February 1984, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for knowingly and wrongfully using some amount of marijuana between 22 November and 
6 December 1983.

4.  On 2 March 1984, he was given a mental status evaluation by a colonel, a medical doctor in the Medical Corps.  The examiner determined he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, able to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed necessary by his command.

5.  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.  He was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 19 April 1983 and was released on 31 May 1983 because of program completion.  On 10 February 1984 it was determined that further rehabilitation efforts for him were not practical and would likely be unsuccessful.  It was recommended he be separated under the provisions of Chapter 13 or 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel).  In accordance with U.S. Army Western Command (WESTCOM) letter, dated 18 August 1983, subject: Discharge for Illegal Drug Abuse the applicant was not cleared for discharge under chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200.

6.  On 14 March 1984, his commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him for reasons of patterns of misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.  His reasons for the proposed action were his continued illegal use of marijuana as evidenced by his twice registering positive for marijuana on 8 March 1983 and again on 22 November 1983.  After his first positive urinalysis he was given the opportunity to seek help in dealing with his use of illicit drugs by being enrolled in the ADAPCP.  This effort failed based upon his second urinalysis administered on 22 November 1983.  According to WESTCOM policy after two positive urinalysis a member would be processed for elimination.

7.  The commander advised the applicant of his right to:

* submit statements in his own behalf
* obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority supporting his proposed separation action
* consult with counsel and/or civilian counsel at no expense to the Government within a reasonable time period
* request consideration of his case by a board of officers provided he had completed 6 years of total active and/or reserve military service or if the separation was to be approved by the general court-martial convening authority
* waive any of these rights in writing 
* withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directed or approved his discharge

8.  On 21 March 1984 after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a statement acknowledging that he had been advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action against him under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct.  He stated he:

* would not submit statements in his own behalf
* understood he could, up until the date the separation authority ordered, directed, or approved his separation, withdraw the waiver of any of the above rights and request that an administrative separation board hear his case
* understood he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him

9.  On 21 March 1984, his commander, in accordance with guidance provided by WESTCOM, requested the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The reasons for the request for discharge were his twice registering positive through urinalysis for the use of marijuana.  He tested positive for marijuana on 8 March 1983 and subsequently enrolled in ADAPCP from 19 April to 31 May 1983.  During another unit sweep conducted on 
22 November 1983 he again submitted a positive urinalysis for marijuana.  ADAPCP recommended he be discharged from the service.  His continued presence in the unit would only serve to be a detrimental influence on the unit's good order and discipline.

10.  On 30 March 1984, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of paragraph 14-12(b), Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 18 April 1984, he was discharged.  He completed 2 years, 9 months, and 23 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.

12.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 9 provided the authority and outlined the procedures for discharging enlisted personnel for alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

	b.  Chapter 13 provided for a member to be separated when it was determined that he or she was unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.

	c.  Chapter 14 in effect at the time dealt with separation for various types of misconduct.  Paragraph 14-12b provided for the separation of a Soldier due to a pattern of misconduct.  This included discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct in violation of the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army regulations, civil law, and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate for separations under the provisions of chapter 14.

	d.  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.  He contends he was very young and should have known better.  His age at time of enlistment was noted.  However, many Soldiers enlisted at a young age and went on to complete their enlistments and receive honorable discharges.  Therefore, the age of the applicant cannot be used as a reason to change a properly issued discharge.

2.  He contends he had one isolated incident during which he used marijuana one time and tested positive on a drug test.  However, the record shows he tested positive for marijuana on 8 March 1983 and he successfully completed ADAPCP from 19 April 1983 to 31 May 1983.  There was no separation action taken at that time.  Then on 22 November 1983 he again tested positive for marijuana.  It was the second positive test that caused the initiation of action to separation him.

3.  The applicant's service prior to his misconduct was clearly taken into consideration in that he received a general discharge where an under other honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate.

4.  He was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

5.  Based on his misconduct, he failed to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  

6.  In view of the above, there is no basis on which to upgrade his 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)                                         AR20140016531



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140016531



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1