MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 July 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003084706

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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:  That he was involuntarily separated for the convenience of the government due to a reduction in force.  He also asserts that his ability to serve was impaired by the use of drugs, alcohol, youth, immaturity, that the punishment he received was too harsh, that it was much worse than others received, that his command abused its authority by giving him a bad discharge, that his enlistment commitment was not fulfilled, that under current standards ghe would not receive the same kind of discharge, and that his record of service was such that less than a fully honorable discharge was not warranted. 

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

He was born on 27 December 1970 and enlisted in Atlanta, Georgia, on 21 May 1990, for a period of 3 years and training as a stinger crewmember.

He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Korea on 13 October 1990.  

On 8 May 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.

He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 August 1991 and in October 1991, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty, for making a false statement to a superior noncommissioned officer and for disorderly conduct.  His punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction.

He departed Korea on 19 November 1991 and was transferred to Fort Ord, California.  On 30 January 1992, NJP was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana as detected by a urine sample submitted by him in Korea on 25 October 1991.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of  E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

On 20 February 1992, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense.  He cited the applicant's disciplinary record and NJP for use of marijuana as the basis for his recommendation. 

The applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 March 1992, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He had served 1 year, 9 months and 22 days of total active service. 

He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 16 December 1994 requesting that his discharge be upgraded because he was unjustly discharged for the convenience of the government and was being denied the benefits that he had earned.  The ADRB opined that his discharge was both proper and equitable; however, the board voted unanimously to change the narrative reason for his separation to reflect "Misconduct" instead of "Misconduct – Abuse of illegal Drugs."

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 established the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for various types of misconduct that included abuse of illegal drugs and frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  It provided that action would be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  Although an honorable or general discharge was authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally considered appropriate.

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 procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions and finds them to be without merit.  The evidence of record clearly indicates that he was discharged for his own misconduct and his record of service is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

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

___tsk  __  __mm___  ___kf ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084706	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/03/12	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  626	144.6000/a60.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.