IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017507 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 an upgrade of his general discharge. 2. The applicant states he was young and he should not have to continue to carry this discharge based on bad decisions he made when he was young. He is still a deserving veteran who served his country. 3. The applicant does not provide any additional evidence in support of his application. 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. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 July 1981 at 18 years of age. 3. On 31 July 1984, the applicant and other Soldiers of his unit submitted to a unit urinalysis. On 5 September 1984, the applicant's test results came back positive for drugs (drug type not identified in the notification letter). 4. A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 17 September 1984, shows a bar to reenlistment was initiated as a result of the applicant's misconduct as follows: * on 28 November 1983, acceptance of an Article 15, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful appropriation * proven illegal drug offender * counseling on 12 occasions during the period 5 April 1983 through 8 September 1984 5. On 18 September 1984, his Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was approved. 6. On 1 October 1984, the applicant's immediate commander initiated discharge action based on his commission of a serious offense (positive urinalysis). 7. On 17 October 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action for misconduct, the type of discharge he could receive, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights available to him. 8. On 1 November 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 November 1984. He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 8 days of creditable active service. 9. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. b. 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. His record shows he was afforded multiple opportunities to conform to standards. There is no evidence that indicates the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their term of military service. 2. The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the applicable regulations. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. In the absence of evidence showing his separation was inequitable or unjust, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 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) AR20130017507 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017507 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1