IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	3 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120019642
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was honored to have served his country and believes an upgrade of his discharge would enhance his chances for better employment.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		19 October 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			4 November 1997
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3        
e. Unit of assignment:			494th Transportation Co, Fort Campbell, KY
f. Enlistment Date/Term:		12 June 1995, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 year, 4 months, 23 days
h. Total Service:			2 year, 4 months, 23 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None 
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	88M10, Motor Transportation Specialist
m. GT Score:				111
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			None
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 June 1995, for a period 4 years, he was 18 years old at the time and was a high school graduate.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated he was serving at Fort Campbell, KY.  The record does not show any significant achievements or meritorious awards.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 24 September 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconductcommission of a serious offense, specifically for wrongfully using marijuana, which resulted in his field grade Article 15.

2.  Based on the above misconduct the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.  

3.  On 24 September 1997, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 17 October 1997, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5.  The applicant was discharged on 4 November 1997, for misconduct, under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, with an SPD code of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Field grade Article 15 dated 31 July 1997, for wrongfully using marijuana (970524-970624).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $450.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  One negative counseling dated 15 July 1997 for testing positive for marijuana.

3.  A memorandum from the Chief, Human Resources Division dated 3 July 1997 that indicates the applicant tested positive for marijuana.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

None provided with the application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.   

2.  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.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s service record, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The record confirms the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier.  The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a field grade Article 15 for a serious violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

6.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. 

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Personal Appearance       Date: 3 June 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?   Yes

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  None

Board Vote:
Character  	Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason	Change:  0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change RE Code to:		No Change
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	No Change
Other:					NA








Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120019642

Page 5 of 5 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1