APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes an upgrade of his discharge is very much warranted.  Since his discharge, he has worked full time, attended school full time and been a single parent full time.  His father, who still lives in Iran, was put in prison for 14 months because of his association with the U. S. Army.  In his 3 ½ years in the service, he witnessed acts that were much more atrocious than his; however, it always seemed that because of the rank, friends and politics of those criminals no justice was ever served.  He includes two letters of support.

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

On 2 August 1989, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 71L (Administrative Specialist).

The applicant had no prior record of any disciplinary actions.

On 29 December 1992, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with wrongful possession and distribution of 1000 tablets of an anabolic steroid and wrongful possession and use of an anabolic steroid.

On 14 January 1993, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation  635-200 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He submitted a statement in his own behalf wherein he requested dismissal of the charges and resolution by Article 15 rather than court-martial, but, if his request was disapproved, then he would request a Chapter 10.  He stated he knew that the use and sale of steroids was wrong but did not know that it was a crime for which he could be court-martialed.  He used steroids to help him compete in body building.  He cooperated fully with law enforcement (as corroborated by Criminal Investigation Command and command statements).

On 5 February 1993, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 19 February 1993, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-4 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 3 years, 6 months and 18 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 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, the discharge authority may direct an honorable or general discharge, if such are merited by the member’s overall record during the current enlistment.

On 30 December 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

On 17 June 1998, after a formal hearing, the ADRB denied his request for an upgraded discharge again.

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.  The applicant admitted to using and distributing steroids and even admitted to knowing that using and selling the steroids was “wrong.”  The applicant chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial.  Despite the seriousness of the charge, his command took into consideration his prior good service and his cooperation with law enforcement by giving him a general discharge in lieu of the normally-given discharge under other than honorable conditions.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s full cooperation with law enforcement at the time of the incident and of his good post-service conduct, these factors, either individually or in sum, do not warrant the relief requested.
4.  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