IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	17 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20120022092
___________________________________________________________________________

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 served honorably and made only one mistake in almost four years of service.  He believes the reason for his discharge was because of PTSD.  Not long after his return from Iraq, he began to use illegal substances to cope with the stress and mental abuse he was feeling.  At that time, he did not care how he got out of the military.  All he cared about was not going back to Iraq again or anywhere else.  Now this is a time in his life that he wishes he could change things.  He would like to be able to serve again; however, he realizes this would be difficult with his PTSD.  He has not been using any drugs for two years and he would like to get his life together.  An upgrade would allow him to get the treatment he needs and earn the respect of his family.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 November 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			13 May 2005
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, 14-12c, 						JKQ, RE-3        
e. Unit of assignment:			B Company, 47th Forward Support Battalion, 1AD, 						Baumholder, Germany
f. Enlistment Date/Term:		8 January 2003, 4 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 4 months, 6 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 4 months, 6 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None 
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	52D10, Power Generator Repairer
m. GT Score:				98
n. Education:				HS Grad
o. Overseas Service:			Germany and Iraq
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (030815-040710)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, PUC
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 8 January 2003, for a period of 4 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated he was serving at Baumholder, Germany.  He was awarded an AAM.  
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The record shows that on 19 April 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), specifically for wrongfully using ecstasy, a controlled substance.

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 21 April 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, conditionally waived his rights to an administrative separation board even though he was not entitled to one, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and indicated he would 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  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 13 May 2005, for misconduct (serious offense), under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, with an SPD code of JKQ and a RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 does not contain any evidence of any AWOL or lost time; however, he received a FG Article 15 which shows that he was charged with being AWOL from 
16 November 2004 to 29 November 2004.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Field Grade Article 15 imposed on 19 January 2005, for wrongfully using  Amphetamines, Ecstasy (MDA/MDMA), a controlled substance (between 040918-041018), and AWOL (041116-041129).  His punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $617.00 per month for 2 months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  There are no negative counseling’s in the applicant’s record.  

3.  The record contains the results of a positive urinalysis dated 18 October 2004 which was coded CO for Competence for Duty/Command Direct for amphetamines/MDMA.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

None provided with the application.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were listed by the applicant.  
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, the issue and documents submitted with the application, the characterization of service appears to be improper.  

2.  The record confirms that on 18 October 2004, the applicant was given a command directed urinalysis (CO) and he tested positive for amphetamines, ecstasy.  On 19 January 2005, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for wrongfully using ecstasy based on that urinalysis.  His punishment for this offense was a forfeiture of pay in the amount of $617.00 per month for 2 months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

3.  If the test basis for the urinalysis was CO, as stated on the collection sheet, then the Article 15 was improper.  There is no indication in the Chapter paperwork that the command recognized that the “Command Directed Urinalysis” could not be used as the basis for the Article 15.  Further, there is no indication the command believed the urinalysis was improperly coded “CO.”  There are also no CID reports or counseling statements that shed any light on the reason the urinalysis was authorized.  

4.  Therefore, it appears the urinalysis was properly coded CO, the Article 15 was improperly based on the limited use evidence, and the discharge was improperly characterized given the introduction of the limited use evidence in the Chapter paperwork.  However, the question whether the urinalysis was properly coded is a question of fact for the Army Discharge Review Board to determine given the contrary conclusions that could be drawn by the command’s treating the urinalysis as though it was not limited use evidence.  The command was either unaware of the implications of the limited use policy or it failed to note in the record the urinalysis was improperly coded.  

5.  The applicant contends his discharge was because of PTSD.  However, the service record contains no evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

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

7.  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: 17 May 2013	Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel: 			None

Witnesses/Observers: 	NA

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:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
The applicant requests 		NA
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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20120022092



Page 2 of 5 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1