MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 October 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060343

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley Powell 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		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 his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told at the time of his discharge his general discharge would be automatically upgraded after six months. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 5 August 1980 for a period of 4 years.  

On 8 April 1981 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

On 26 March 1982 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language toward a superior noncommissioned officer.  

The applicant served as a fire support specialist in Korea from 20 November 1982 through 21 November 1983.  He reenlisted on 9 March 1984 for a period of 6 years.

On 2 June 1986 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using marijuana.

On 18 June 1986 the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs).  The unit commander based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s recent positive urinalysis for marijuana. 

On 23 June 1986 the applicant consulted with counsel, acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected to submit statements on his own behalf.  He submitted 
13 character reference letters from soldiers and civilians in support of his retention in the Army.

On 1 July 1986 the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs).

The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.

On 8 July 1986 the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 July 1986 with a general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs).  He had served 
5 years, 11 months and 21 days of total active service.  

There is no indication in the available records which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Chapter 14, in effect at the time, dealt with separation for various types of misconduct, which include drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service.  Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established which would require automatic change or denial of a change in discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

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 Board considered the applicant’s contention that he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded in six months.  However, an upgrade is not automatic and there is no evidence which shows the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade within the 15-year statute of limitations.      

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

3.  The Board noted that the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate; however, the separation authority directed the issuance of a general discharge in this case. 

4.  The Board reviewed the applicant’s record of service and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

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 this 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

SP_____  ALR_____  TEO_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060343	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011023	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860725	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct (Abuse of illegal drugs)	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.