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