IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	19 April 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120021628
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board noted that the government introduced the results of a command directed urinalysis into the discharge process.  This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85.  Use of this information mandates award of an honorable discharge.  Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to honorable.  However, the Board found the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and voted not to change it.  




      
      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, that he is trying to get his educational benefits in order to go to school and further his education.  He has not been in any trouble since he left the Army and works for the government repairing navy ships.  He wants this upgrade so that he can continue to better himself and the country.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		19 November 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			21 November 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, paragraph
      14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4        
e. Unit of assignment:			HHQ Co, 1/20th Aviation Regiment, Fort Rucker, AL
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	23 January 2001 for 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 9 months, 29 days
h. Total Service:			1 years, 9 months, 29 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	71L10 Administrative Specialist
m. GT Score:				101
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:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 January 2001, for a period of 4 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and had a high school diploma.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L10 Administrative Specialist.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievements.  He was serving at Fort Rucker, AL when his discharge was initiated.  He was awarded the NDSM, ASR.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The evidence shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for commission of a serious offense, because he was command referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 5 September 2001, as a result of possession of an illegal substance charge.  He was admitted to the Eisenhower Substance Abuse Program (ESAP) at Fort Gordon, GA, on 22 October 2001 until 20 November 2001.  Since his return from ESAP, the applicant has not abstain from cannabis and cocaine use because on 5 August 2002, he tested positive for marijuana.

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

3.  On 8 October 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did not submit a statement on his 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 15 October 2002, after monitoring the applicant’s duty performance for the past two months, the unit commander reviewed the applicant’s request for a conditional waiver of the administrative separation board and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  On 12 November 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation, approved the conditional waiver and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 21 November 2002, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (2), with a RE code of 3.

7.  The service record does not contain any evidence of time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, dated 18 September 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about (020706-020805); his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $553.00 for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, dated 4 October 2001, for wrongfully possessing four marijuana cigarettes on or about (010829); his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of ½ months pay for two months, suspended, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

None provided with the application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant stated he works for the government repairing navy ships.  

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.  After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records and the issue submitted with the application, the characterization of service appears to be improper.  

2.  The record confirms the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test conducted on 5 September 2001, when he was command referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  The urinalysis sample was part of the applicant’s evaluation into the program which he was subsequently enrolled in the residential treatment program.  This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence because the test was administered as part of the applicant’s rehabilitation program.  Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service.  

3.  The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case.  

4.  Therefore, the characterization of service being improper, recommend the Board grant full relief by upgrading the applicant’s characterization to honorable.  However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and remains both proper and equitable.   

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review	  Date:  19 April 2013   Location: Washington, DC

Counsel: None

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

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












end:
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
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR 20120021628

5



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1