IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 6 May 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130015532
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 general discharge to a fully honorable discharge.
2. The applicant states he completed the rehabilitation required and was told that if he cooperated with U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and changed the way he was, he would be able to stay in the Army and not be discharged. He cooperated with the CID and risked the safety of his family in order to apprehend a known drug supplier who was also in the military. He is currently in the process of getting help for post-traumatic stress disorder and social anxiety through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 2003 for a period of 4 years, training as a field artillery automated tactical data systems specialist, and a cash enlistment bonus. He completed his training and was transferred to Hawaii for his first and only assignment.
2. He deployed to Iraq during the period 11 January 2004 through 11 January 2005. On 18 April 2005, he reenlisted in the pay grade of E-4 for a period of 6 years and a selective reenlistment bonus.
3. On 20 March 2006, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for the wrongful use of cocaine and wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the performance of duty.
4. On 29 June 2006, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 14-12c(2), by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense for wrongful use of a controlled substance (cocaine).
5. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
6. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be discharged under honorable conditions.
7. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 10 November 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), for misconduct drug abuse. He completed 3 years, 7 months, and 9 days of active service.
8. The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 4 November 2011. On 9 May 2012, the ADRB determined that his discharge was both proper and equitable and voted unanimously to deny his request for an upgrade.
9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and procedures for separating personnel for misconduct. Specific categories included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military authorities, commission of a serious offense, and drug abuse. Although an honorable or general is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
10. Army Regulation 635-200, 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.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
2. The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade when compared to the serious nature of his offenses.
3. Accordingly, his discharge appropriately characterizes his otherwise undistinguished record of service during the period in question. His service simply does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.
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 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) AR20130015532
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130015532
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070014080 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The regulation shows that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022175
Army Regulation 635-200 further states, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. It states, in pertinent part, that SPD code JKK is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct - drug abuse. He has failed to show through the evidence submitted with his application or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012754
On 21 February 2006, the applicants immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 14-12(c) of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) for misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and for wrongful use of cocaine on four separate dates. The ADRB did not change the reason for discharge for the discharge was for misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs, and fully supported by the applicant's...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010126
The evidence shows that on 5 October 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for wrongfully using cocaine. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 11 October 2006, the separation authority...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002269
He was discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, due to misconduct-commission of a serious offense, and assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of "JKQ" and an RE code of "4." On 29 February 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge. The SPD code of JKK was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130007108
The evidence contained in the applicants service record shows that on 7 December 2004, 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 of misconduct (serious offense) for the use of cocaine. On 17 January 2005, separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver submitted by the applicant and referred his administrative separation to the administrative separation Board. On 11...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014202
The prevalence of illegal valium obtained by a member of the applicant's unit while he was present, the fact that his doctor could not remember prescribing him valium, and the fact that the applicant was unable to produce a prescription for valium are sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt he wrongfully used valium. However, as indicated in his commander's letter, dated 31 January 2007, he was being processed for separation based on his valium use in Iraq and a positive urinalysis for...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013555
On 17 February 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense) for illegal drug use. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 19 February 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080017479
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 JANUARY 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080017479 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. While the applicant is to be commended for his post-service accomplishments, they have no bearing on the period of service in the Regular Army that is now in question or the misconduct which served as the basis for his general discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130009820
The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 7 September 2007, 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 of misconduct (serious offense) for testing positive for the use of cocaine on 5 September 2006 and 5 July 2007. On 3 October 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization...