RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 April 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080000799 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Eric N. Andersen Chairperson Mr. Peter B. Fisher Member Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann 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, in effect, that his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states that he has not had any infractions in the 17 years since his discharge. He further states that he cannot attend police officer schooling until his discharge is upgraded to honorable. 3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 15 February 1989, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15E (Pershing Missile Crewmember). 3. On 16 June 1989, the applicant was assigned to the 9th Field Artillery Battalion, in the Federal Republic of Germany. 4. On 1 August 1990, the applicant was promoted to specialist, pay grade E-4. 5. On 16 May 1991, the applicant was assigned to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for training in MOS 13B (Cannon Crewmember). He completed this training and was assigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama. 6. On 11 December 1991, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to obey orders. The punishment included 14 days restriction and extra duty. 7. On 23 April 1992, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included forfeiture of $393.00 pay per month for 2 months (suspended), reduction to private, pay grade E-1 (suspended), reduction to private, pay grade E-2, effective 24 April 1992; and 45 days extra duty. 8. On 28 May 1992, the suspended NJP punishment imposed on 23 April 1992, was vacated due to the applicant’s failure to report for extra duty on 16 and 23 May 1992. 9. On 16 June 1992, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. The commander stated that the applicant’s repeated disregard for regulations and his total lack of concern was detrimental to himself and to his unit. Further punishment or attempts to rehabilitate him would be a waste of time. 10. On 18 June 1992, the applicant consulted with counsel concerning his rights. He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf. 11. On 29 June 1992, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant’s service be characterized as general, under honorable conditions. He further directed that the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. 12. Accordingly, on 2 July 1992, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions. He had completed 3 years, 4 months and 18 days of creditable active service. 13. On 11 June 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's petition to upgrade his discharge. 14. 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. Paragraph 14-12c (2) provides for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. 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 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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 3. The applicant’s unsubstantiated claim of good post-service conduct does nothing to mitigate his repeated acts of indiscipline during his military service. 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. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _ PBF_ __ __JCR __ __ENA __ 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. __ Eric N. Andersen ___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED YYYYMMDD TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.