MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           20 June 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002066407

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be changed to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was a drug and alcohol abuser before he entered the Army and hoped the Army would make a man out of him.  Except for his drug use he was a good soldier.  He states that he was young and immature at the time and could not stop drinking or using drugs.  He entered a treatment program in April 1989 and has been sober and drug free since.  He now spends a lot of his time helping other people get clean.  He has not broken the law except for traffic tickets since he left the Army.  He asks for forgiveness, as he is now a responsible, productive member of society.

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

He entered active duty on 14 July 1982, at almost 20 years of age.  After completion of training he was assigned to Panama as an infantryman.  On 15 December 1983, at over 21 years of age, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful possession of marijuana and amphetamines.  The approved punishment included reduction in pay grade from E-3 to E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction and extra duty.  The applicant did not appeal the punishment.

On 15 February 1985, the applicant was identified as having used marijuana on or before 3 January 1985, based on the results of a positive urinalysis test.  The memorandum of notification to the applicant's commander noted that soldiers who have been identified in two separate instances (drug use) since 1 July 1983, are required to be separated from the service.  On 12 March 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for wrongful use of marijuana.  The approved punishment included a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

On 15 March 1985, the applicant was identified as having used marijuana on or before 11 February 1985, based on the results of a positive urinalysis test.  The memorandum of notification to the applicant's commander noted that this was a confirmed second positive for marijuana use.

On 8 April 1985, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for breaking restriction on two separate occasions.  The approved punishment included a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.

On 19 April 1985, the applicant was informed of the commander's intent to recommend him for separation for illegal drug abuse.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to have his case considered by a board of officers or to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The Acknowledgement of Notification he signed also stated that he understood he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws if a discharge under other than honorable conditions were issued.  He also acknowledged that he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or this Board for consideration of a discharge upgrade.

The commander forwarded his recommendation that the applicant be separated for misconduct based on recurrent drug use.  Enclosed with the recommendation was a Report of Mental Status Evaluation from 5 March 1985.  This evaluation noted that the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal, and his memory good.  In the examiner's opinion the applicant was mentally responsible and met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501.

On 10 June 1985, the separation authority, a major general, approved the recommendation and directed separation under other than honorable conditions. Effective 11 June 1985, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct.  He had 2 years, 10 months, and 28 days creditable service.

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion, or absence without leave.  Action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it was clearly established that rehabilitation was impracticable or was unlikely to succeed.

There is no evidence of record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15-year time limit.

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 was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and veteran's benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was over 21 years of age at the time of his first drug offense.

3.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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

__rvo___  __rwa___  __jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002066407	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020620	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850611	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A66.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.