ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
IN THE CASE OF: Johnson, Eric A. BOARD DATE: 16 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER:   
APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests the upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable. 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 
DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record). 
FACTS: 
1. 
The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b) (Correction of Military Records: Claims Incident Thereto). However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2. 
The applicant states he has been out of the military for over 30 years, and he has had to live with the shame of an under honorable conditions character of service. At the time of his discharge, he was young and inexperienced; he made poor choices based on a lack of judgment. He is nonetheless proud that he was able to serve our country; he just wishes, after all this time, the Board could remove this blemish from his military record. 

3. 
The applicant's service records show: 


a. 
On 2 December 1986, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he was 19 years old. Upon completion of initial entry training, and the award of military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist), orders assigned the applicant to Fort Bliss, TX, and he arrived at his unit on 20 April 1987. Effective 2 Jun 1987, the applicant's Fort Bliss leadership promoted him to private (PV2)/E-2. 

b. 
On 17 July 1987, Fort Bliss' Commanding General issued the applicant a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) because chemical testing had revealed, on 12 July 1987, the applicant had been driving drunk. On 14 July 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for operating a passenger vehicle while drunk; punishment included reduction to private (PV1)/E-1. 

c. 
On 5 May 1988, the applicant extended his enlistment by 7 months so he could qualify for a permanent change of station move to Fort Hood, TX. On 20 July 1988, the applicant arrived at his Fort Hood unit. Effective 1 September 1988, the applicant's Fort Hood chain of command promoted him to specialist four (SP4)/E-4. 

d. 
On 4 January 1989, the applicant's Fort Hood company commander gave the applicant a letter of reprimand after the applicant's 30 December 1988 arrest in the local town, due to public intoxication; the commander additionally reprimanded the applicant for missing unit physical training. 

e. 
On or about 24 February 1989, the applicant accepted NJP from his company commander because the applicant had been found drunk on duty; the applicant's punishment included a suspended reduction to private first class (PFC)/E-4. 

f. 
On 18 April 1989, and based on the applicant's prior apprehension, on 12 July 1987, by the military police for driving drunk, the Fort Hood Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Program (ADAPCP) enrolled the applicant into Track II (Nonresidential Rehabilitation). The enrollment document (DA Form 4465 (ADAPCP Client Intake/Screening Record) showed alcohol and cannabis use as the applicant's diagnosis/basis for enrollment. 

g. 
On 26 April 1989, the applicant's company commander initiated bar to reenlistment action against him. In support of the bar to reenlistment, the commander cited the applicant's two NJPs and listed two traffic violations, four counseling statements, and the company commander's letter of reprimand; on 3 May 1989, the battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment. 

h. 
On 23 June 1989, the applicant's company commander vacated the suspended reduction to PFC because a urine sample, given by the applicant on 17 April 1989, came back positive for cocaine. On 26 June 1989, the applicant accepted NJP from his battalion commander for two specifications of having tested positive for illegal drugs; on 17 April 1989, the applicant tested positive for cocaine, and, on 18 April 1989, the applicant gave a urine sample, in which biochemical testing detected marijuana. The imposing official's punishment included reduction to PV2. 

i. 
On 24 July 1989, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c (Acts or Patterns of Misconduct 


– 
Commission of a Serious Offense), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel). His reasons for this action were the applicant's positive urinalysis tests showing the presence of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol; the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana) and cocaine. 

j. 
Additionally, on 24 July 1989, the commander prepared his recommendation to the separation authority, in which he listed the applicant's disciplinary history and, with regard to rehabilitation efforts, noted the applicant's previous enrollment in ADAPCP and the counseling provided by the chain of command. However, the commander stated the applicant had displayed a poor attitude towards rehabilitation and improvement; all methods of rehabilitation had failed. 

k. 
On 31 July 1989, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged counsel had advised him of the basis for, and the effects of the separation action; counsel also informed him of his rights and the impact of waiving those rights. The applicant elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

l. 
In an undated endorsement, the separation authority approved the commander's separation recommendation and directed the applicant's general discharge under honorable conditions; on 9 August 1989, orders discharged the applicant accordingly. The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 2 years, 8 months, and 8 days of his 3-year enlistment contract. In addition, the DD Form 214 lists the awards of the Army Service Ribbon and two marksmanship qualification badges. 


4. The applicant essentially acknowledges his misconduct, but states he is nonetheless proud of his service to our country. He maintains he was inexperienced young man who made bad choices; for over 30 years, he has had to live with the shame brought on by his less than honorable character of service. He asks the Board to remove this blemish from his military record. 
a. 
During the applicant's era of service, paragraph 14-12c authorized commanders to initiate separation action against Soldiers who had committed a serious military or civilian offense where the specific circumstances warranted separation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice authorized a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge. The regulation considered the abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, in effect at the time, showed punitive discharges among the maximum punishments for violations of Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession, etc. of Controlled Substances). Commanders had to option to initiate separation action against first-time offenders, grades E-1 through E-4, but separation was mandatory for Soldiers who abused illegal drugs more than once. 

b. 
In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, his service record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, his record of service, and nature of his misconduct and the reason for his separation. The Board found insufficient evidence of in-service mitigation to overcome the misconduct. 
The Board considered his statement, but found insufficient evidence of post-service achievements or letters of reference to support a clemency determination. The Board found that he was discharged for misconduct and was provided an under honorable conditions (General) characterization of service. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board agreed that the applicant's discharge characterization is warranted as he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel to receive an Honorable discharge; it was not in error or unjust. 
BOARD VOTE: 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
: : : GRANT FULL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
XX XXX XXX DENY APPLICATION 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined 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. 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): 
Not Applicable 
REFERENCES: 
1. 
Title 10, USC, 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 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. 

2. 
Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policies and procedures for enlisted administrative separations. 


a. 
Paragraph 3-7a (Honorable Discharge). An honorable discharge was a separation with honor; commanders issued an honorable discharge certificate based on the Soldier's proper military behavior and proficient duty performance. Commanders were to give due consideration to the Soldier's age, length of service, and general aptitude. Where there were infractions of discipline, commanders were to assess the extent of those infractions as well as the seriousness of the offenses. 

b. 
Paragraph 14-12c applied to Soldiers who had committed a serious military or civilian offense where the specific circumstances warranted separation and the UCMJ authorized a punitive (i.e. bad conduct or dishonorable) discharge. The regulation considered the abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct, and commanders had to option to initiate separation action against first-time offenders, grades E-1 through E-4, but separation of second-time offenders was mandatory, regardless of enlisted grade. 


3. 
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States 1984, Table of Maximum Punishments showed Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession, etc. of Controlled Substances) included punitive discharges as punishments. 

4. 
On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their 


equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//