MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 November 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062935

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. William D. Powers		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the general discharge prevents him from being employed within the Federal Government.  Enough time has passed that this blemish should not follow him for the rest of his life.  He provides no supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1976.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 67V (Observation/Scout Helicopter Repairer).  

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, shows that he was first promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 13 October 1979.  It shows he was reduced to Specialist Fourth Class, E-4 on 23 April 1980 (only the portion of the Article 15 vacating the suspended reduction is available).  He was reduced to Private First Class, E-3 on 2 July 1980 (the Article 15 is not available).  He was promoted again to Sergeant, E-5 on 4 May 1984.

On 10 December 1984, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for wrongful use of some amount of marijuana between about 27 July and 6 August 1984.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-4.

On 5 March 1985, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.  The applicant was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.

On 8 March 1985, the applicant’s company commander recommended retention of the applicant despite the positive test for marijuana use because the applicant was an asset to the maintenance team, he had good leadership qualities, and was dependable, knowledgeable, and worthy of a second chance.  On an unknown date, the battalion-level commander recommended the applicant be discharged.

On 20 March 1985, the applicant’s company commander initiated discharge proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, acts or patterns of misconduct.  The applicant was advised that the least favorable characterization of service description he could receive was a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

The applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated discharge action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 27 March 1985, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 and directed he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 8 April 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct – drug abuse.  He had completed 8 years,        3 months, and 24 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

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.  First-time drug offenders, grades E-5 – E-9, will be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  In pertinent part, the regulation states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’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.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  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.

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.  As an E-5 with 8 years of service, the applicant was fully aware that drug use was contrary to military good order and discipline and what the possible penalties for such use could be.  The Board concludes that his command considered his record of service when it was directed he receive a general discharge under honorable conditions rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The evidence of record does not support a further upgrade to fully honorable.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __jpi___  __wdp___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062935	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850408	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A66.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.