PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            2 September 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015651

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley .		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his military records be corrected to show that he was separated in pay grade E-4 and authorized separation pay (SSB) under the Army’s FY92 voluntary separation program.  He also states that his separation report should reflect entitlement to four Army Achievement Medals and four Army Good Conduct Medals.  The applicant also requests payment of any or all of his SGLI (serviceman’s group life insurance).

3.  He states that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his 1992 general discharge to honorable in 1997 and as such he contends that his rank and original basis for separation should be reinstated.  He notes that he has been unable to secure full time employment since his separation and that he needs all the assistance he can get.  He contends that he never requested withdrawal of his VSI/SSB but rather it was based on the “order of the Secretary of the Army and not by [him].”  In support of his request he submits copies of the 1997 ADRB action and copies of his four Army Achievement Medal certificates.

4.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 13 August 1980 and was promoted to pay grade E-4 in August 1981.  In September 1985 he was reduced to pay grade E-3 as a result of punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for using cocaine.  He was subsequently promoted to E-4 in January 1986.

5.  In February 1992 the applicant was notified that the retention control point for individual’s in pay grade E-4 would be reduced to 8 year effective 1 October 1992 and that he was advised to take advantage of the Army Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) or Special Separation Benefits (SSB) to avoid being involuntarily separated with only separation pay when he reached his scheduled 1993 ETS date.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the new retention control point information and requested that he be voluntarily separated effective 
30 September 1992 with entitlement to the SSB.

6.  On 11 August 1992 the results of a command directed urinalysis revealed that the applicant had tested positive for the use of marijuana.  As a result of the positive urinalysis he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ and reduced to pay grade E-1.  In a statement rendered at the time of punishment the applicant indicated that he had been under a lot of stress and “had made a mistake and taken the wrong approach in dealing with [his] stress.”  He requested leniency in his punishment.

7.  Because this had been the applicant’s second incident of drug use, Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, required that administrative separation action be initiated.  All favorable personnel actions were suspended (flagged) and on 
24 September 1992 action was initiated to involuntarily separate the applicant for misconduct and his approved voluntary separation with the SSB was voided.

8.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights providing that he received nothing less than a general discharge.  The recommendation for involuntary separation was approved and on 28 October 1992 the applicant was separated in pay grade E-1 with a general discharge.  At the time of his separation he had completed 12 years, 2 months, and 16 days of active Federal service.

9.  In 1997 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s general discharge to honorable citing that the “applicant’s generally acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty mitigated the discrediting information in the service record.”

10.  His records show that he was awarded four awards of the Army Achievement Medals (800821-830602, 860427-880425, 890403-890407, 880504-901119) although his 1992 separation document reflects only two awards.  Additionally, his records indicate he was awarded four awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal (800813-830812, 830813-860812, 860813-890812, and 890813-920812), although only three awards are reflected on his separation document.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, provides for the involuntary separation of soldiers in pay grade E-1 through E-9 who are identified as second-time drug offenders.  Generally, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate but the separation authority can direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

12.  HQDA Message 070001Z January 1992 announced the implementing instructions for the FY92 enlisted voluntary incentive program.  The SSB was one of the monetary benefits associated with this incentive program.  The voluntary incentive program was designed to support the Army's drawdown and the FY92 program targeted four categories of soldiers.  Category 1 applied to soldiers, with more than 7 years of service on 31 December 1991, in pay grade E-4 or below and those in pay grade E-4 who were on a promotion list to E-5.  Category 2 applied to soldiers in pay grade E-5 who were on a promotion list to E-6 and had 12 or more years of service as of 31 December 1991.  Category 3 applied to soldiers in pay grade E-5 or above with 9 or more years of service on 31 December 1991 in specific occupational specialties announced by Department of the Army.  Category 4 applied to any soldier with 6 or more years of service as of 5 December 1991 who were fully qualified for retention, but denied reenlistment by HQDA.  The application window for all categories was established as 
7 January 1992 through 29 February 1992.  Additionally, soldiers must be in an “eligible status” (i.e. no “flagging” actions or other adverse personnel actions) on the date of separation in order to remain eligible for the voluntary separation program.  Soldier’s who become ineligible will have their VSI/SSB applications voided.
13.  The Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) provides full-time life insurance coverage to individuals in military service.  Soldiers are automatically insured for the full amount upon entry into a period of active duty but may decline coverage in writing.  Coverage is in effect throughout and individual’s period of active duty and for 120 days following separation.  There is no re-coupment of any funds following separation from active duty.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s records confirm he was awarded four awards of the Army Achievement Medal and four awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal and as such is entitled to have his records corrected accordingly.

2.  Although the soldier was covered under the SGLI while on active duty that coverage did not convey following his separation nor are there any provisions for individuals to recoup any funds associated with that insurance program.

3.  The Board contends that the applicant’s reduction to pay grade E-1 as a result of his positive urinalysis and punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ was appropriate particularly when you consider that this was his second involvement with drugs.

4.  Additionally, the Board notes that as a result of the applicant’s second incident of drug use he was required to be processed for administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and thus became ineligible for voluntary separation under the VSI/SSB program.  The voiding of his voluntary separation was appropriate and there is no evidence of any error or injustice in that action.  Allowing an individual’s voluntary separation request to remain in effect in spite of any subsequent misconduct would not be in the best of the Army nor fair to those soldier’s who continued to abide by the traditions of good judgement and discipline until their separation.

5.  The fact that the Army Discharge Review Board determined that the applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable did not change the fact that the applicant was separated for misconduct nor invalidate the reason for his reduction to pay grade E-1.  The Board concludes that the reduction and subsequent separation were both appropriate and there is no evidence of any error or injustice in either of those actions.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing issuing a DD Form 215 reflecting award of four Army Achievement Medals and four Army Good Conduct Medals.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. 

BOARD VOTE:  

__MKP__  __TNK__  __JMA___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.