RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060014764 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. Gerard W. Schwartz Acting Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Ms. Linda D. Simmons Chairperson Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann Member Mr. Scott W. Faught Member 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 general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his performance evaluations reflected his excellent job performance, good conduct, and professionalism. He received one letter of commendation for performance in the REFORGER training exercise in the Federal Republic of Germany. He further states that his errors were the ways of a boy. He has changed now that he is a man and has not been in any trouble since. He considers himself a good citizen. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), a Certificate of Achievement dated 23 January 1986; and three letters of support from a former employer and friends. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice which occurred on 18 August 1986, the date of his discharge. The application submitted in this case is dated 26 September 2006. 2. On 15 March 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational 52D1O (Power Equipment Mechanic). 3. On 7 October 1985, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of $200.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 30 days extra duty. 4. On 18 June 1986, the applicant received NJP for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included reduction to private, pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $319.00 pay for 2 months (1 month suspended), and 30 days extra duty. 5. On 30 June 1986, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense. The applicant was twice found to have wrongfully used marijuana within 1 year. 6. On 1 July 1986, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights and elected to make a statement in his own behalf. In his statement, he contended that he was a good Soldier who had two bad experiences but felt that he was capable of overcoming his mistakes and be a better Soldier. He further stated that he would seek help to better himself. 7. On 6 August 1986, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions. 8. Accordingly, on 18 August 1986, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions. He had completed 2 years, 5 months and 4 days of creditable active service. 9. On 5 April 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. 10. 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 leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The record shows two serious offenses of drug use within a year. 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 4. The applicant’s good post-service conduct is noted. However, it does not sufficiently mitigate his repeated and excessive acts of indiscipline during his military service. 5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __LDS __ __JCR __ __SWF__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that 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. ___ Linda D. Simmons___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20060014764 SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070405 TYPE OF DISCHARGE GD DATE OF DISCHARGE 19860818 DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200, ch 14. . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 144.6000 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.