IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	31 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130001191
___________________________________________________________________________

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 served in Iraq for a year and earned the ICM with two campaign stars.  He feels he is worthy of an honorable discharge because since being discharged he works full time.  He desires to receive VA benefits to continue his education and self improvement.  An honorable discharge would allow him to better serve his community; his goal is to become a firefighter.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		14 January 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 September 2011
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, 
   					Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			C Co, 1-68th  Armor Regiment, Fort Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	27 January 2009, 3 years, 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 8 months, 1 day
h. Total Service:			2 years, 8 months, 1 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	63A10 K4, Abrams Tank System Maintainer
m. GT Score:				99
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (100320-110311)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-W/2 CS, GWOTSM, NPDR 						ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 2009; for a period of 3 years, and 25 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 63A10 K4, Abrams Tank System Maintainer.  He was serving at Fort Carson, CO, when his discharge was initiated.  His record also shows that he served a combat tour and earned several awards including an ARCOM.


SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 17 August 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for wrongfully using cocaine (110610-110613).

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 18 August 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board (although he was not entitled to a board) and submitted 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.  On 16 September 2011, 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 documented evidence of unauthorized absences or lost time.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 16 September 2011, 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 (drug abuse), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK, with a RE code of 4. 

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded, IU, Inspection Unit, with a collection date of 13 June 2011, cocaine.

2.  A negative counseling statement done on 21 July 2011, for failing the urinalysis test.  

3.  A Field Grade Article 15, dated 28 July 2011, for wrongfully using cocaine (110610-110613); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $733 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:  

The applicant provided a DD Form 293; two DD Forms 214; two Certificates of Completion, EMT Basic Program, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle; DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report); Diploma, Warrior Leader Course, Class 11-011; and a Certificate of Achievement. 
POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:  

The applicant completed the basic EMT program.

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 a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and a negative counseling statement.
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 served in Iraq for a year and earned the ICM with two campaign stars.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

5.  The applicant further contends he is worthy of an honorable discharge because since being discharged he works full time.  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.  

6.  The applicant also contends an honorable discharge would allow him to better serve his community; his goal is to become a firefighter.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

7.  The applicant desires to receive VA benefits to continue his education and self improvement.  However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

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

9.  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: Record Review            Date:  31 May 2013             Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  Yes



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	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20130001191



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1