BOARD DATE: 2 September 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140002124 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 an honorable discharge. 2. The applicant states he was discharged for the wrongful use of cocaine. Before his separation he participated in the Army Substance Abuse Program at Fort Eustis, VA. Since then he has completed inpatient rehabilitation at Vitality Center, Elko, NV, and became active in Alcoholics Anonymous. He would also like to utilize veteran's banking benefits through independent lenders and institutions that require nothing less than an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant provides: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 22 January 2014 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 2006. He did not complete training and did not receive a military occupational specialty. 2. On 25 April 2007, the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial, in accordance with his plea and a pre-trial agreement, of the wrongful use of cocaine. 3. On 23 May 2007, his immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him for misconduct by commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12(c). The commander stated the applicant had tested positive on 7 January 2007 during the unit's 100% urinalysis for cocaine. 4. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification action and consulted with counsel. He indicated he would not submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge. 6. The battalion and brigade commanders recommended a general discharge. 7. On 1 June 2007, the applicant was accordingly discharged. 8. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged for misconduct with his service characterized as under honorable conditions. He had completed 11 months and 12 days of creditable active duty service. 9. In August 2011, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions (a pattern of misconduct consisting solely of minor military disciplinary infractions), a pattern of misconduct (consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities or conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline), 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. b. Paragraph 3-7a states 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 evidence of record shows the applicant committed a serious offense. Accordingly, his commander initiated separation action against him. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant appear to have been fully protected throughout the separation process. 2. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief. 3. The ABCMR does not upgrade discharges based solely on the passage of time nor does it correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits from another agency. Granting of veterans' benefits is not within the purview of the ABCMR. 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) AR20120009372 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140002124 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1