IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr.

      BOARD DATE:  	10 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120021465
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both 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 that his under other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was young, very immature at that time and he would like the opportunity to reenlist and fulfill his commitment.  He could give many reasons why he acted in the manner that he did but none of them are good.  He is much wiser now and is sincerely asking for another chance.  

a. Application Receipt Date:			23 November 2012	
b. Discharge Received:			Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				19 March 1999
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct               										AR 635-200, 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4	
e. Unit of assignment:				HHC, 31st Combat Support Hospital, 31st Air 							Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, TX	
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		19 November 1996, 02 years, 18 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:		02 years, 04 months, 01 day
h. Total Service:				02 years, 04 months, 01 day
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		57E10/Laundry and Bath Specialist
m. GT Score:					113
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			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 19 November 1996, for a period of 2 years and 18 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time and a high school graduate.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated he was serving at Fort Bliss, TX.  He did not serve in combat and when he was discharged he had completed over 2 years and 4 months of active service.






SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 3 February 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, specifically for the commission of the following serious offenses:

	a.  Testing positive, on two separate occasions, for the wrongful use of controlled substances on unit urinalysis.

	b.  One positive urinalysis was for marijuana and the second was for cocaine and marijuana.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 3 February 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. 

4.  On 26 February 1999, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  

5.  On 5 March 1999, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

6.  On 12 March 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request to waive his administrative separation board and directed the issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  

7.  The applicant was separated on 19 March 1999, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4.  

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







EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  The record is void of the Article 15s, but the UCMJ information was taken from the commander’s recommendation memorandum:

	a.  Field Grade Article 15, dated 15 August 1997, for wrongful use of marijuana.  
	b.  Company Grade, dated 27 October 2008, for failure to repair.

	c.  Field Grade, dated 25 January 2009, for wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine.  

2.  Several negative counseling statements dated between 26 June 1998 through 3 February 1999, for indebtedness, failing to report, restriction violation, possession of an illegal substance, failure to obey a direct order, and APFT failure.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a self-authored statement, DD Form 214 and DD Form 293

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states he is much wiser now and more mature. 

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 record of service, his military records, 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 that 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.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a Field Grade Article 15 and a Company Grade Article 15 and several negative counseling statements for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  

3.  The applicant contends he would like to reenlist.  At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.  An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.   

4.  The applicant also contends that he was young and immature during the time of his enlistment.  The applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  The record does not contain any evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

5.  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: 	Records Review	Date:  10 April 2013     Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

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 Authority for Separation:	N/A
Change RE Code to:	N/A
Grade Restoration to:	N/A
Other:	N/A



















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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120021465



Page 5 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1