IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	1 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000417
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he has carried himself in an honorable manner since being discharged, only a minor traffic violation. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		28 December 2012
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			3 December 2002
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, 14-12c(2), 	
      JKK, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			A Co, 70th Engineer Battalion, Fort Riley, KS
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	3 January 2001, 4 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 11 months, 01 day
h. Total Service:			1 year, 11 months, 01 day
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	12B10, Combat Engineer
m. GT Score:				107
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:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 January 2001, for a period of 4 years.  He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was serving at Fort Riley, KS, when his discharge was initiated.  He did not have any personally earned awards in his service record and did not have any combat service.  







SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 7 November 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, specifically for the following offense of wrongfully using marijuana.

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

3.  On 7 November 2002, 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 13 November 2002, 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’s record does not show any record of unauthorized absences or lost time.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 3 December 2002, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 3.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.   There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record:
 	
       a.  IR, Inspection Random, 27 June 2002, marijuana 

       b.  IU, Inspection Unit, 18 July 2002, marijuana
	
2.  An Article 15, dated 27 August  2002, for stealing a license plate, of some value, the property of SPC A (020711); and wrongfully using marijuana (020619-020718); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $553 pay x 2 months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

3. The record does not contain any counseling statements.





EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 149, dated 17 September 2012; St. Louis County Police, Record Check Information, dated 17 September 2012; and a DD Form 214, dated 3 December 2012.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any.

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 issues and documents 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 an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  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 he has carried himself in an honorable manner since being discharged, only a minor traffic violation. The applicant is to be commended for his effort.  However, this contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued.  

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:  Records Review      Date:  1 May 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

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)		AR20130000417



Page 4 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1