MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 April 2002      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069246

	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:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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:  In effect, that he needs his discharge upgraded for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 30 January 1985 for a period of 5 years.  He attended One Station Unit Training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (infantry).

Between 5 September 1985 and 28 December 1988, the applicant was counseled on six occasions for various infractions which include financial problems, indebtedness, failures to report, driving an unauthorized vehicle, suspected drunk driving and unsatisfactory performance. 

On 2 June 1988, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using cocaine.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1 (suspended and automatically remitted if not vacated before 2 September 1988), forfeiture of $335 for 1 month and restriction.

Between 19 October 1988 and 28 December 1988, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on three occasions for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, for failure to repair and breaking restriction. 

On 6 February 1989, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using cocaine.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $250 pay and extra duty.

On 9 March 1989, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) and (abuse of illegal drugs).  The unit commander recommended that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.  He cited that the applicant wrote approximately 20 checks with insufficient funds, that he failed to pay two bills to commercial establishments and that he used cocaine on two occasions.  The unit commander also noted the various infractions for which nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant. 

On 9 March 1989, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation.  He also acknowledged that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 9 March 1989, the unit commander initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (pattern of misconduct) and (abuse of illegal drugs).

The intermediate commander concurred with the recommendation for separation.

On 10 March 1989, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct (abuse of illegal drugs).  He directed the issuance of a general discharge.
 
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 27 March 1989 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 
4 years, 1 month and 28 days of total active service. 

On 20 February 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.

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.

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 needs his discharge upgraded for entitlement to educational benefits.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of obtaining educational benefits. 
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 which included five nonjudicial punishments, two of which were for cocaine use, and determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant 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

FNE___  BJE_____  REB_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069246	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020418	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890327	
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.