BOARD DATE: 15 April 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130013690
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 reconsideration of his previous request for amendment of his reentry eligibility (RE) code. He also requests a personal appearance before the Board.
3. The applicant states he has no new evidence; however, as a new argument he states he has matured, admitted his mistakes, and has a strong desire to be in the military.
4. The applicant provides no additional evidence.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR201200003775 on 28 August 2012.
2. The applicant stated he has matured, admitted his mistakes, and has a strong desire to be in the military. This is a new argument and warrants consideration by the Board.
3. The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 4 November 1998.
4. His record is void of the facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge; however, his records contain a National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) which shows he was discharged on 30 October 2002 under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-26e(2), by reason of misconduct drug positive. He completed 3 years, 11 months, and 27 days of net service. His service was characterized as under honorable conditions and he was assigned an RE code of 3.
5. On 12 January 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge.
6. National Guard Regulation 600-200 governs the policies for the administrative separation of ARNG enlisted personnel. Paragraph 8-26a(2), in effect at the time, stated a Soldier would be separated from the State ARNG for misconduct for abuse of illegal drugs.
7. Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides for the orderly administrative separation of ARNG enlisted Soldiers. An 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.
8. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) states that individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge prior to discharge or release from active duty. Chapter 3 includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes. RE code 1 applies to persons completing their terms of active service and who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. RE code 3 applies to persons not qualified for reentry or continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
9. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records), paragraph 2-11, states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing (personal appearance) whenever justice requires.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's record is void of the facts and circumstances which led to his voluntary discharge. However, his DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26a(2), for misconduct for abuse of illegal drugs which is a serious offense. He was assigned an RE code 3.
2. His contentions that he has matured, admitted his mistakes, and has a strong desire to be in the military were carefully considered. However, he did not provide a convincing argument to show his RE code 3 was unjust. Therefore, he has established no basis for changing his existing RE code.
3. Without evidence to the contrary, it appears that his administrative separation and assignment of RE code 3 were accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
4. His request for a personal appearance hearing was also carefully considered.
However, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record and the new argument provided by the applicant are sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice 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 the overall merits of this case are
insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20120003775, dated 28 August 2012.
___________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) AR20130013690
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130013690
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020871
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 June 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090020871 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for an upgrade of his Army National Guard (ARNG) discharge from general to honorable and restoration of his original rank/grade of specialist four (SP4)/E-4. The regulation defines a NGB Form 56a as the form issued to a Soldier who is discharged from the ARNG only and reverts to control of the Army Reserve; whose...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058549C070421
He reports that “…a number of witness who could sustain the facts in favor of Captain [the applicant] who were never interviewed or given the opportunity to testify….” He recommends “in the strongest terms” that the applicant be re-appointed as a captain with longevity and all benefits. It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is...
CG | BCMR | Alcohol and Drug Cases | 2003-100
The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 27, 2001. The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 10, 2001. On April 10, 2001, the applicant also signed a page 7 advising him that drug use was against Coast Guard policy, that upon reporting to recruit training he would be tested by urinalysis for drug use, and that if his urine tested positive for drugs he would probably be discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge.
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2003-100
The applicant was discharged from the Coast Guard on April 27, 2001. The applicant enlisted in the Coast Guard on April 10, 2001. On April 10, 2001, the applicant also signed a page 7 advising him that drug use was against Coast Guard policy, that upon reporting to recruit training he would be tested by urinalysis for drug use, and that if his urine tested positive for drugs he would probably be discharged from the Coast Guard with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011853
The applicant provides a letter with four character statements and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States). The applicant's military personnel record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 2000. Table 3-1 (U.S. Army reentry eligibility codes), of Army Regulation 601-210 states that RE-4 applies to persons separated from last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110015408
Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army National Guard Regulation 600-200 sets forth the basic authority for the Army National Guard and establishes the separation of enlisted personnel. The analyst determined that the applicants discharge was appropriate because his quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005769
Counsel requests, in effect, reconsideration of the applicant's previous request for remission/full administrative relief for a $10,000 officer accession bonus (OAB) he received and is now being recouped because a Federal recognition appointment was never extended to him. His service record does not indicate he was granted permanent Federal recognition for this appointment. As a result, the Board recommends that all State Army National Guard and Department of the Army records of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000669
On 7 April 2005, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, directed that the applicant be reduced to private/pay grade E-1, that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that he not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. On 7 June 2006, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. While the Board acknowledges the applicant's statement that he is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120012725
The applicant requests his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicants military record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1 on 21 November 1995, for 4 years. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC was normally considered appropriate.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007092
Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the...