BOARD DATE: 3 June 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017184 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 that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he has been clean and sober since 26 January 2000 and he believes that he deserves an upgrade of his discharge. He has totally changed his life and has been on his job as a pharmacy technician for almost 10 years. He would like to be known as an honorably discharged combat veteran. 3. The applicant provides five third-party character references. 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. Prior to the period of service under review the applicant served in the Regular Army (RA) from 1984 to 1987 and he was released from active duty due to the expiration of his term of service. He had served 2 years, 11 months, and 25 days of active service. 3. He again enlisted in the RA with a moral waiver on 3 August 1989 for a period of 4 years and training as a combat signaler. He completed his training at Fort Gordon, Georgia and was transferred to Germany for assignment to a cavalry unit. He deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA) during the period 17 December 1990 through 10 June 1991. 4. The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's administrative discharge are not present in the available records as they were loaned to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Chicago, Illinois on 10 June 1992. However, his records do contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows that he was discharged under honorable conditions on 11 February 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c due to misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs. He had served 2 years, 6 months, and 9 days of active service during his current enlistment. 5. On 10 March 1998, he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and contended at that time that after returning from SWA he believed he was singled out by his command for the purpose of discharge. On 21 July 1998, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 6. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, and commission of a serious offense, which includes drug offenses. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 7. Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 2. Accordingly it is presumed the characterization and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate. 3. While the applicant is to be commended for his post-service accomplishments, his discharge appears to appropriately characterize his service during the period in question and his third-party letters of support are not sufficient in themselves to warrant an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. 4. Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing an error or injustice occurred in his case, there appears to be no basis to grant his request. 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) AR20130017184 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017184 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1