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 Soldier’s 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