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