IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	28 June 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130002785
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she would like an upgrade of her discharge for the purpose of being able to move forward in her life and that she would like to utilize the Post 911 GI Bill.  The applicant contends she received several awards and decoration and that she completed 29 months of a 36 month enlistment.  She contends that since her discharge, she quickly worked her way up to a management positions as an assistant food and beverage director and later pursued a career as a computer operator where she was awarded the employee of the quarter.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		4 February 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			31 January 2003
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 						14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			59th QM Co, 68th CSB, Fort Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	11 August 2000, 3 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 5 months, 20 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 5 months, 20 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service Specialist
m. GT Score:				100
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Korea
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM-4, NDSM, ASR, OSR
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 11 August 2000, for a period of 3 years.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She served in Korea.  She earned four AAM’s and completed 2 years, 5 months, and 20 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 9 January 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for the wrongful use of a controlled substance for which she received two field grade Article 15's, dated (020904 and 021125), for violating a general order (020915), breaking restriction without authority on (020916), and failing to report at the time prescribed on (021005 and 021006).

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 9 January 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on her 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 17 January 2003, 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 from the Army on 31 January 2003, 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), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 4. 

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











EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record:

	IU, Inspection Unit, 9 July 2002, cocaine 
	IU, Inspection Unit, 16 September 2002, methamphetamine and amphetamine

2.  Article 15, dated 4 September 2002, for the wrongful use of cocaine between (020703 and 020709).  Punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $651.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG).

3.  On 1 November 2002, the suspended sentence of forfeiture of $651.00 for one month was vacated because of a new offense of wrongful use of methamphetamine and amphetamine between (020910 and 020916).

4.  Article 15, dated 25 November 2002, for the wrongful use of methamphetamine and amphetamine between (020910 and 020916), and failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 2 (021005 and 021006).  Punishment consisted of forfeiture of $552.00, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG).

5.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 8 August 2002 and 23 October 2002, for violating restriction, breaking visitation policy, disobeying orders from a noncommissioned officer, not reporting to her appointed place of duty, positive urinalysis results.

6.  Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 September 2002, which diagnosed the applicant with AXIS 1: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood; and AXIS 2: Disorder NOS with immature and aggressive traits.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided two applications DD Form 293 and DD Form 149 and a self-authored statement explaining why her discharge should be upgraded and a copy of the DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states in effect, that since her discharge she has been a good citizen, she has attended college, made advancements on her job, been an active member in her local church community and an active participant in her children's extracurricular activities.







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 for her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining her 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 her 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 her service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by 2 Article 15's for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and four negative counseling statements.

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 she received several awards and decoration and that she completed 29 months of a 36 month enlistment.  The applicant’s in-service accomplishments and the quality of her service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review were duly considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  

5.  The applicant contends she suffered from stress and distress and began to drink; she brought her feelings of depression and anxiety to her commander; however she did not feel that anyone would want to help her.  AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance.  The record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought assistance through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, she has provided no evidence that she should not be held responsible for her misconduct.  

6.  The applicant further contends she has been a good citizen since her discharge.  She quickly worked her way up to a management positions as an assistant food and beverage director.  She later pursued a career as a computer operator where she was awarded the employee of the quarter.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  

7.  The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge.  However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service.  Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings.  The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

8.  The applicant also contends her ability to serve was impaired by her youth and immaturity.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

9.  The applicant additionally contends that her ability to serve was impaired by personal problems which resulted in being diagnosed with a personality disorder was noted.  However, the report of mental status evaluation shows the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the separation proceedings and was mentally responsible.  Furthermore, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.  

10.  The applicant desires to receive educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  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.

11.  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:  28 June 2013   Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel: None

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:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		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)		AR20130002785



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1