MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  18 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002068921

	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. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 discharge characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his UOTHC discharge was unjust and should be upgraded to honorable.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 4 October 1977, as a light weapons infantryman.  He was promoted to SGT/E-5 on 2 March 1982.

On 19 October 1982, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

On 11 May 1983, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for assault.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, and restriction and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 16 September  
1984, and was found qualified for separation.  He underwent a mental evaluation on 15 October 1984, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

On 23 October 1984, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intentions to initiate action for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, drug abuse.  He based his reasons on the applicant’s conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana, wrongful possession and distribution of marijuana, and use of marijuana.  The portion of the applicant’s waiver of rights pertaining to his separation is not in the available records.

On 23 October 1984, the battalion commander reviewed the applicant’s packet and concurred with the opinion of the company commander and recommended that the applicant be discharged.

On 11 November 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge, reduced the applicant to the pay grade of E-1, and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 16 November 1984.  

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.
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, 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.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.

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 notes the applicant’s contention; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention or to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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.  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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ro___  ___sk___  ___ji_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068921	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020718	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19841116	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635- 200, C-14-12C	
DISCHARGE REASON	DRUGS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.