APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since he was not offered non-judicial punishment, he feels his discharge should be upgraded.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 July 1977 and had continuous service until his discharge.  The highest grade he held was Sergeant, E-5.

On 12 February 1985, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of wrongfully appropriating a privately-owned vehicle, driving it while drunk and causing an accident, and wrongfully leaving the scene of an accident.

On a urinalysis conducted on 20 May 1985, the applicant came up positive for marijuana.

On 19 July 1985, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using some amount of marijuana.

In August 1985, the applicant received a local bar to reenlistment based upon his court-martial conviction and his Article 15.

On 1 November 1985, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct, use of marijuana.

On 1 November 1985, the applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He requested his case be considered by a board of officers, he wanted to make a personal appearance before such a board, and wanted representation by counsel before such a board.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 22 January 1986, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings.  He completed a separation physical on this date and was found to be qualified for separation.

On 21 February 1986, a hearing was held.  The applicant and witnesses for the applicant appeared before the board.  The board found he had used marijuana as alleged and recommended he be separated due to misconduct, use of marijuana.  

On 14 March 1986, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 28 March 1986, the applicant was discharged in pay grade of E-4 under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He had completed           8 years and 8 months of creditable active service and had no lost time.  His awards and decorations included the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal (2d Award).

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 (abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct), convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Commanders will separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 20 March 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  He had accepted non-judicial punishment for the offense.  Considering his previous conviction by a summary court-martial, the characterization of his discharge as general is appropriate.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director