MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 June 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067230

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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:  That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the type of discharge that he received is too severe considering the nature of offenses.

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

On 26 January 1994, he enlisted in the Army for 6 years in the pay grade of E-1. He successfully completed his training as an avionic communications equipment repairer.

He was promoted to pay grade E-2 on 26 July 1994, to pay grade E-3 on 1 February 1995 and to pay grade E-4 on 1 April 1996.

The applicant was counseled on 13 August 1996, regarding a urine specimen that he provided which tested positive for cocaine.  He was also told that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings would be conducted and that he would be provided an opportunity to defend himself.  The applicant was read his rights and he waived his rights.

On 25 September 1996, NJP was imposed against him for wrongfully using cocaine between 13 July and 13 August 1996.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was counseled again on 30 October 1996, after he provided another urine specimen that tested positive for cocaine.  During the counseling, he was directed to enroll in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program and he was told that consideration would be given to initiating separation action against him.  

On 4 December 1996, NJP was imposed against him a second time for wrongfully using cocaine between 17 August and 17 September 1996.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 18 December 1996, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 based on misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 31 December 1996 and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 9 January 1997.  Accordingly, on 4 March 1997, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  He had completed 3 years, 1 month and 9 days of total active service.

On 18 January 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.

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 his rights.

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

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant provided two urine specimens approximately 2 months apart and both tested positive for cocaine. Considering his acts of indiscipline and the nature of his offenses, it does not appear that his general discharge was too severe.

4.  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.

5.  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

___ao___  ___rks __  ___jlp ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067230	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/06/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	626	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  671	144.6730	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.