IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 30 January 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130010124
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 honorable conditions (general) discharge.
2. The applicant states:
* his Company Commander discharged him under false allegations, telling him it was for using [drugs or alcohol] while enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)
* after discharge, he was issued a reentry (RE) code of "RE-3," despite the fact he had no prior acts of misconduct
* there is no circumstantial evidence leading to such misconduct
* he was not negatively counseled prior to his discharge
* his discharge document does not specify what his serious offense was
* he would like to receive the Army Good Conduct Medal and reenlist; however, his RE code of "RE-3" makes that difficult
* he wants to be part of the military, to protect and serve with honor
3. The applicant provides no additional evidence in support of his request.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 May 2008. He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 21E (Construction Equipment Operator).
2. The specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing are not available for review with this case. According to his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), he was discharged on 3 March 2011, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). This form further shows he was discharged in the rank/grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3, and he was given an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
3. On 26 October 2011, after a careful review of his application, military records, and all other available evidence, the Army Discharge Review Board determined he was properly and equitably discharged and denied his request for a discharge upgrade.
4. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
a. 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.
b. 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. However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the Soldiers overall record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request for an upgrade of his under honorable conditions (general) discharge was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.
2. His record is void of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), and he received an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.
3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed his discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
4. It is also presumed that his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights, and that all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights appear to have been fully protected throughout the separation process.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis to grant relief in this case.
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) AR20110020788
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130010124
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090019442
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The evidence does include a properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for the applicants active duty discharge on 21 July 1989 which shows the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant was recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021130
On 17 November 1989, the commanding general/separation authority approved the conditional waiver and ordered the applicant discharged from the Army under the provisions of chapter 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - abuse of illegal drugs with the issuance of an under honorable conditions discharge. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) she was issued confirms she was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of chapter 14, Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003673
It states that individuals would be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty. SPD code "JKQ" is the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense. However, her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged on 4 February 2000 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014434
However, after examining the applicants record of service, his military records, and the documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for his discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." No Counsel: Yes [redacted] Witnesses/Observers:...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009372
The "JKQ" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under chapter 14-12c of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of misconduct - commission of a serious offense. The evidence of record shows the applicant committed a serious offense. The evidence of record further shows the applicants discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with Army standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009937
He provides the following documents: a. a clinical assessment in which he indicated his mental health issues as PTSD, depression, anxiety, and medical issues of neck and back pain; b. a clinical summary which indicated he was diagnosed with poly-substance dependence, substance-induced PTSD at axis I; back pain and neck pain at axis II; and problems with primary supports, social environment, legal housing, and other at axis IV; c. an EAEDC Medical Report that shows he underwent a medical...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130014540
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 20 June 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense). Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his available military...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140021236
Throughout his time in the military he never had any disciplinary actions. However, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under honorable conditions (general) on 4 October 2012 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL). On 12 August 2013, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100007524
Applicant Name: ????? The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct-serious offense, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense, with a characterization of service of general, under...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014434
On 13 December 2007, the applicants immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense, based on two periods of AWOL with one period exceeding 30 days. The evidence of record shows that the applicants RE code was assigned because he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,...