MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           30 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065513

	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. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		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, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity; that his record of promotions shows that he was generally a good soldier; and that he has been a good citizen since discharge.

In support of his application, the applicant submitted a copy of his performance of duty counseling for 8-23 August 1983, a recommendation and indorsment for promotion to private first class/E-3, a certificate of promotion to specialist/E-4, and the Good Conduct Medal.

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

On 21 July 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 4 years and for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 72E (Combat Telecommunications Center Operator).  The applicant was 17 years old when he enlisted in the RA.  He successfully completed all required military training, was awarded MOS 72E, and was assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for his first permanent duty station.  

On 6 January 1984, the applicant was transferred to Fort Shafter, Hawaii.

On 6 June 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongfully using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $172.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended), and 14 days’ extra duty.  

On 19 September 1985, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of reduction to private first class/E-3, forfeiture of $185.00 pay per month for 1 month (suspended), and 14 days’ extra duty.

On 12 February 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for wrongfully using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of reduction in grade to private/E-2, forfeiture of $167.00 pay per month for 1 month, and 14 days’ extra duty.

On 14 February 1986, the commanding officer recommended the applicant be discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 by reason of misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The commander stated that the applicant’s history of misconduct violated acceptable 

standards of personal conduct and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  He further noted that the applicant had been involved in dishonored check writing and possession and use of marijuana.  The applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent.  

On 14 February 1986, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he would like to be honorably discharged from the Army because he felt it was in the best interest of his family and himself.  He also stated that anything less than honorable would create more problems and stress for his family.

On 28 February 1986, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge with a GD.  Accordingly, on 18 March 1986, the applicant was discharged from the Army after completing 3 years, 7 months, and 28 days of active military service.

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.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

On 13 August 1987, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge.  On 10 May 1988, the ADRB changed the applicant’s reason for discharge from misconduct – commission of a serious offense to misconduct – drug abuse and declined to upgrade his characterization of service. 

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.  The Board found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  

2.  The applicant, by habitually violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in him as a soldier.  The applicant had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked his military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

3.  The applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

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.

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

___AAO_  ___HOF__  __TEO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065513	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020430	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20020318	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	144.9405	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.