MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE: 	   12 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071641

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		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:  An honorable discharge instead of a general discharge under honorable conditions (GD).   

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has learned from his past and would like not to be penalized for the rest of his life.  He states, that he was recently wed and has a child on the way.  He would like to provide the best for his family and to do so; he needs to remove the hurdle that he has in front of him.  He believes, that the type of discharge that he received has stopped him from being hired.  He realizes that he was wrong but one irresponsible weekend lead to this.  He states, that he now has responsibilities and would like the chance to change the mistake that he made.  The applicant submitted a letter in support of his application. 

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

On 5 January 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 14T10 (Patriot Missile Crewmember).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 19 June 2001, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for five occasions of failure to go at the prescribed time his appointed place of duty.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $283.00 pay (suspended for 3 months), a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 3 months) and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 5 September 2001, a urinalysis test was conducted in the applicant's unit.  The applicant tested positive for Cocaine.  

On 21 September 2001, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for the wrongful use of Cocaine.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, 45 days extra duty and a forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 
2 months.

On 10 October 2001, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14.  The applicant acknowledged that he understood that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.   After being advised of the impact of the discharge action; he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 12 October 2001, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  On 26 October 2001, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 9 months and 22 days of creditable active service.  

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 leaves.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 30 August 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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.  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.

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.  After being advised by a legal counsel, the applicant declined counsel, waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers, and acknowledged that he understood the effects of a GD.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

3.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determination at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army’s drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant is to be commended for his post service accomplishments.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.

4.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

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

__JNS__  __DPH___  __WDP__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071641	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/12	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/10/26	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chp14 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.144.6000		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.