MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035399

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and that the date he entered active duty be corrected to read 18 October 1976.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he believes his discharge should be upgraded to an HD.  He further comments that he is in the process of entering the Army Reserve where he hopes to prove himself and become an asset to the Army.  He further states that he entered active duty on 18 October 1976 and not on 23 October 1979, as recorded on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty).

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

The record shows that the applicant initially entered active duty on 19 October 1976.  His initial date of entry on active duty is well documented in the record.  It is included in his first enlistment contract, which is contained in his Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), and it is recorded in block 35 of his Department of the Army (DA) Form 2-1 (Enlisted Qualification Record).  

On 23 March 1983, while assigned to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, for the period of service under review. At the time of this enlistment he had already completed 6 years, 5 months, and 
5 days of honorable active service and held the rank of specialist/E-4. 

In June of 1983, he completed his tour in Hawaii and was reassigned to Fort Meade, Maryland, where he was promoted to the rank of sergeant/E-5 on 
1 February 1984.  His disciplinary history for the period of service under review includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, on 3 December 1985, for the use of a controlled substance.  

On 15 January 1986, his unit commander notified him of the intent to process him for separation, under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 
635-200.  The commander cited the reasons for the action as the applicant’s having tested positive for THC, a controlled substance, on 2 October 1985 and his acceptance of NJP on 3 December 1985 for this same offense.  The unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated from service with either an honorable or general discharge as determined by the separation authority. 

On 15 January 1986, the applicant consulted counsel and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, he completed his election of rights.  In his election form the applicant requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, personal appearance before an administrative separation board, and representation by counsel.  

On 4 March 1986, an administrative separation board was scheduled to convene on 7 March 1986, with the applicant and his counsel present, to consider the applicant’s case.  However, the rest of the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the events pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records.  This includes the proceedings of the administrative separation board and the final approval of the separation authority.

The evidence of record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), which was signed by the applicant.  This document verifies that on 21 March 1986, the applicant was discharged with a GD after completing 2 years, 11 months, and 29 days of his current enlistment and a total of 6 years, 5 months, and 3 days of active military service.  

The date entered in block 12a (date entered active duty this period), 23 October 1979, of the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on 21 March 1986, is not meant to document the specific date he initially entered the Army.  It is simply the date he entered active duty for the period covered by that particular DD Form 214.  

There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade to his discharge within the 15-year statute of limitations. 

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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A member separating under these provisions may receive an honorable, general, or under other than honorable conditions discharge.

DISSCUSSION:  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.  Although all the facts and circumstances pertaining to the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not on file, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, signed by the applicant, and the Board presumes government regularity in the discharge process.

2.  It appears from the evidence of record that the applicant was afforded his right to have his case heard before an administrative separation board and that he was provided legal counsel during separation processing.  Although, the specific board proceedings are not on file, the Board was satisfied, lacking evidence to the contrary, that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 

3.  By violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier and more importantly as a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  As an NCO, he had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and this misconduct clearly diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  The applicant’s claim that his date entered active duty was incorrect was determined to be without merit.  The date entered active duty this period, contained on the DD Form 214, issued to the applicant upon his discharge, was not intended to document his initial entry date on active duty.  His initial entry date of 19 October 1976 is well documented elsewhere in his record. Therefore, the Board determined there was no error in the record concerning the applicant’s initial date of entry on active duty. 

5.  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.

6.  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

__mdm__  __js ____  ___mw __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035399	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2000/05/24	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1986/03/21	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.