IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 December 2013 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130007462 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 under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge to an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently decided his service was honorable for VA purposes. He requests final documentation showing his service was honorable. 3. The applicant provides copies of: * a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 1 April 2013 * VA letter, dated 18 March 2013 CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 March 1987. He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 31K (Combat Signaler). 2. The available record shows the applicant: a. accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 26 May 1988 for the wrongful use of marijuana. b. was convicted in accordance with his plea by a December 1988 summary court-martial of the wrongful use of marijuana. 3. On 6 January 1989, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2)(b), for abuse of illegal drugs. The reason for his proposed action was the applicant's conviction by a summary court-martial for the wrongful use of marijuana and his acceptance of an NJP for the wrongful use of marijuana. The applicant was advised of his rights and of the separation procedures involved. 4. He was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects; of the rights available to him; and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He waived his right to an administrative separation board and he indicated he would not submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. On 6 January 1989, the applicant's commander recommended separation with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2)(b). 6. On 27 February 1989, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendation for discharge with a UOTHC discharge. 7. On 7 April 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly. He had completed 2 years and 13 days of creditable active service. 8. There is no available evidence showing he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge. 9. He provides a copy of a letter in which the VA indicates they have decided that his U.S. Army service from 2 March 1987 to 7 April 1989 is honorable for VA purposes. He is entitled to health care benefits for any disability determined to be incurred or aggravated during active Army service. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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, frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, and absence without leave. A UOTHC discharge 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. c. Paragraph 3-7b states a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his UOTHC discharge to an honorable discharge based on the fact that the VA had decided his service from 2 March 1987 to 7 April 1989 was honorable for VA purposes. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights. 3. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, decided the applicant's active duty service was honorable for VA purposes is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish his active duty service as honorable for Department of the Army purposes. 4. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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) AR20130007182 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1