APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded.

APPLICANT STATES:  He makes no statement.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 July 1977 and had continuous service until his discharge.

In June 1983, the applicant was counseled regarding a letter of indebtedness.

In October 1983, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform code of Military Justice for wrongful use of marijuana sometime between 23 September and 3 October 1983.

On 18 October 1983, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  His recommendation cited the applicant’s positive testing for marijuana on a urinalysis test.

On 18 October 1989, the applicant acknowledged that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel.  He waived representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He acknowledged that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were to be issued to him.

On 19 October 1983, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment for his marijuana use.

On 22 October 1983, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that he be given a general discharge.

On 27 October 1983, he was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 - unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge.  He had completed 6 years, 3 months and 23 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  

On 18 June 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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