RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            04 MARCH 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003093380

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Chairperson	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he has been drug free for over 18 years.  He has a 12-year-old son and would like to set a good example.  He wants to be a good role model for him and wants to ensure that he does not use drugs. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 3 years on 2 February 1979, completed training, and in September 1979 was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington as a scout driver.  In April 1981 he was promoted to pay grade E-4.  
On 12 August 1981 he reenlisted in the Army for 4 years.

2.  On 18 May 1982 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under     Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana.  He was reduced to pay grade E-3.  

3.  In January 1983 the applicant was assigned to an infantry battalion in Germany.  On 1 May 1983 he was again promoted to pay grade E-4.

4.  A CID (Criminal Investigation Division) report of 18 August 1983 shows that the applicant was apprehended for possessing hashish.  On that date the applicant made a sworn statement to the effect that approximately two grams of hashish was found on his person, that he attempted to sell hashish to another Soldier, and that he himself smoked some hashish.

5.  On 20 October 1983 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for wrongfully possessing marijuana in the hashish form, for wrongfully attempting to distribute the drug, and for wrongfully using the marijuana.  

6.  On 14 November 1983 the applicant's commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him for misconduct.

7.  The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge under honorable conditions that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The applicant's commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army.  That officer indicated that the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions, and that he would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in training or become a satisfactory Soldier.  On 27 December 1983 the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  The applicant was discharged on 9 January 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, for misconduct – drug abuse.     

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, provides for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 14-12a states that members are subject to separation for a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions.  An under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally appropriate for separation for misconduct; however, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the member's overall record.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is more than fair considering the nature of the applicant's infractions.  He could have received a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  

3.  The applicant's contention of good post service conduct is noted; however, this factor does not warrant the relief requested.  

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KAN __  __KLW__  __KLW__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		__Kathleen A. Newman____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003093380	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040304	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.