MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 November 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061745

	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:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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 a fully honorable discharge (HD). 

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

On 23 June 1998, he entered the Regular Army for 3 years.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G (Food Service Specialist) and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.  

The applicant’s record shows that during his active duty tenure he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Army Achievement Medal.  However, there are no other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition documented in his records.  The record does contain an extensive disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and a record of misconduct that includes his being absent without leave (AWOL) and his abuse of illegal drugs.

On 31 March 2000, the applicant accepted NJP for making a false statement and three specifications of failing to go to his prescribed place of duty.  He was also AWOL for 26 days from 27 April to 22 May 2000, and he was cited for the illegal use of drugs as follows:  wrongful use of marijuana, between 12 June and 
12 July 2000; wrongful use of cocaine, between 9 and 13 June 2000; and again for the wrongful use of marijuana, between 25 March and 25 April 2000.

On 9 August 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c(2), Army Regulation 635-200, for his illegal use of drugs.  He also informed the applicant that he intended to recommend he receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.

On 11 August 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He completed his election of rights by waving consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent on his receiving a GD.  

On 26 September 2000, the separation authority, upon the recommendation of the applicant’s chain of command and the staff judge advocate, accepted the terms of the applicant’s conditional waiver of rights and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c(2), Army Regulation 635-200, for his abuse of illegal drugs and that he receive a GD.  

Accordingly, on 11 October 2000, the applicant was discharged after completing a total of 2 years, 2 months, and 23 days of creditable active military service and having accrued a total of 26 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

On 29 August 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge after determining that his discharge was proper and equitable. 

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 and it states, in pertinent part, that action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate; however, an honorable or general discharge may be granted.

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 evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  Further, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  This is evidenced by the fact that the applicant was separated with a GD under the terms of his own conditional waiver of rights.  

2.  By violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a soldier.  As a soldier, he had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, he knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, lacking any factors of mitigation, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JLP__  __MHM__  __RKS___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061745	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/11/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2000/10/11	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.