IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	31 July 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130003228
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

1.  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 that the characterization of service was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

2.  Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board, on the basis of equity and further based on the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, which included a Purple Heart, voted to change the applicant’s reason for discharge, authority, separation code, and reentry code and directed that a new DD Form 214 be issued reflecting the following changes:

	a.	block 25, separation authority changed to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c
	b.	block 26, separation code changed to JKQ
	c.	block 27, reentry code changed to 3
	d.	block 28, narrative reason for separation changed to Misconduct (Serious Offense)  

3.  Except for the foregoing modifications, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable.




      
      
      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 to upgrade his characterization of service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes that he was mistreated by his superior officers during his service.  He did not speak out about the mistreatment out of fear of being labeled a coward.  He did not know how to handle the stress, so he turned to drugs for comfort.  He knows he made the wrong choice, but believes he should be granted an honorable discharge 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	11 February 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	3 May 2011
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 1st Bn, 17th IN Rgmt, 2nd Bde (SBCT), 2nd 
			Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 October 2008, 4 years, 21 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 7 months, 3 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 7 months, 3 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B1P, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	111
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (090715-100714)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	PH, ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-CS; ASR; OSR; NATO 
			MDL; CIB 
	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 1 October 2008 for a period of 4 years and 21 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Afghanistan.  He is a recipient of a Purple Heart and earned an ARCOM.  He completed 2 years, 7 months, and 3 days of active duty service.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 1 March 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 misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs.  Specifically for being charged with having possession of two vials of steroids.

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

3.  On 30 March 2011, 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 April 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 was discharged from the Army on 3 May 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 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.  A negative counseling statement, dated 10 January 2011, for wrongful possession of dangerous drugs (Steroids).
      
2.  A Memorandum, dated 29 November 2010, subject: Actions RE Identification of Drug Abuser.  The memorandum contained an extract of an MP Blotter that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for possession of steroids (101114).

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.  

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant provided none.  



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, and the issues 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 a counseling statement and an MP blotter reporting the misconduct incident.

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 the discharge was unjust because he felt mistreated by his superior officers.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discriminated.  In fact, the applicant’s negative counseling statement justify the serious incident of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.

5.  The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.  Accordingly, 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:  31 July 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  2	No Change:  3
Reason Change:	4	No Change:  1
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		Yes
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			Misconduct (Serious Offense)
Change Authority for Separation:	AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Para 14-12c
Change RE Code to:		RE-3
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:					Change SPD to “JKQ.”



















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)		AR20130003228



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1