MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:                   26 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:          AR2000045407

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Thomas F. Baxter		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:  That her general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her discharge was too harsh considering the nature of the offense.

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

She enlisted on 2 May 1996 as a food service specialist.

On 20 April 1999, a urine specimen was obtained from the applicant, which tested positive for two controlled substances (marijuana and cocaine).

On 7 June 1999, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 19 August 1999, which determined that she could distinguish right from wrong and that she possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 8 August 1999, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s NJP for wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine, wrongful use of government property and her failure to pay a just debt.

After consulting with counsel, she waived consideration of her case by a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.  

On 12 August 1999, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct- based on abuse of illegal drugs.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 25 August 1999
and was found qualified for separation.

On 16 September 1999, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 18 October 1999.  She had a total of 3 years, 
5 months, and 17 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge on 5 June 2000.  The ADRB determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request on 4 August 2000.

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, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  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 this requirement.

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:

AAO____  MHM____  TFB_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045407	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000926	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19991018	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-, C-14	
DISCHARGE REASON	110	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.