IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 December 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100014646 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states: * His discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 32 months of service with no other adverse action * His discharge is affecting his employment and educational (Montgomery GI Bill) opportunities 3. The applicant provides 10 character reference letters. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 March 2003 for a period of 4 years. He successfully completed his training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 35R (avionic systems repairer). He attained the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4. 2. On 24 August 2005, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was imposed against the applicant for wrongfully using marijuana. 3. On 6 September 2005, the applicant was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct (commission of serious offense). The unit commander recommended the applicant be issued a general discharge for wrongfully using marijuana. 4. The applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, and its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waving his rights. He acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge were issued. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 14 September 2005, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed the issuance of a general discharge. 6. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 7 October 2005 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs. He had served a total of 2 years, 6 months, and 20 days of total active service. 7. On 19 November 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgraded discharge. 8. In support of his claim, the applicant provided 10 character reference letters from fellow Soldiers, his mother, a family member, and friends. They attest the applicant is an exemplary role model, a productive person, self-motivated, dependable, has a positive attitude, performs community work, and is trustworthy and honest. 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Section III of Chapter 14, in effect at the time, established policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories included minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense. The regulation states, in pertinent part, that abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct. The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining employment opportunities. 2. The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for veterans' benefits (i.e., the Montgomery GI Bill). Every case is individually decided based upon its merits when an applicant requests a change in his or her discharge. 3. The character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant fail to show that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded. 4. Evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense - abuse of illegal drugs. As a result, his record did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 5. 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. He had an opportunity to submit a statement in which he could have voiced his concerns and he failed to do so. 6. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____X___ ____X___ ___X____ 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. ___________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100014646 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100014646 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1