IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	28 August 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130004347
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that from the time he was punished for misuse of illegal drugs in May 2011, he never stopped from being a Soldier. He carried on and knew that by wearing his uniform, he was in a great position.  As a 92A (Logistics Specialist) in October 2011, he was commended for an exceptional job during the Battalion Staff Assistance Visit (SAV). Even though he was still flagged and waiting for the chapter process to take place.  His attitude was not subpar.  He trained his fellow Soldiers on daily tasks and functions.  Anything that was asked of him, he executed without question.  With the proper guidance, he helped his unit pass the battalion inspections in two areas, the Army Maintenance Management System (TAMMS) and Shop Supply; receiving commendable scores which brought the two originally substandard scores from below 60 percent to a commendable 97 percent, which was a big reason for his unit’s honorable mention for the Army Award for Maintenance Excellent (AMME) Fiscal Year 2011.  He knows that we face challenges in life and must learn from our lessons.  He has learned them the hard way.  He is proud to have served.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	25 February 2013 
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	13 June 2012
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	226th Quartermaster Company, 87th CS Bn, 3rd 
			Sustainment Bde, Fort Stewart, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	27 January 2009, 4 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 4 months, 17 days 
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 4 months, 17 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92A10, Automated Logistical 
	m.	GT Score:	94
	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:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No


SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 January 2009, for a period of 4 years.  He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A10, Automated Logistical.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 3 years, 4 months, 17 days of active service.  He was serving at Fort Stewart, GA, when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 23 April 2012, 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 (drug abuse).  Specifically for the following offenses:  

   a. having tested positive for THC (110510)
   b. having tested positive for THC (090908)

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 30 April 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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.  The separation authority’s decision memorandum is not available.  However, the brigade commander’s (who had the separation authority) memorandum to Commander, 3rd Infantry Division, dated 23 May 2012, recommended approving the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions is at the forefront of the applicant’s separation file.

5.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 13 June 2012, 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.   There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record:  

	a.  IR, Inspection, Random, 10 May 2011, marijuana. 
	b.  ADAPT Biochemical Information shows a positive urinalysis, 8 September 2009, 
marijuana, with no further information. 

2.  Article 15, dated 29 July 2011, for using marijuana (110410-110510).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733 per month for one month ($433 suspended), 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days restriction (15 days suspended), (FG). 

3.  A Rehabilitation Team Agreement report, dated 25 July 2011, indicates the applicant was enrolled in ASAP on 25 July 2011.  

4.  Three negative counseling statements, dated between 6 June 2011 and 15 June 2011 x 2, for having a positive urinalysis and command referral in ASAP, in which the applicant stated he self-referred in ASAP, and for substandard performance.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no further evidence. 

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 documents 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 an Article 15 punishment for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 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 that he had good service which included his unit receiving recognition.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully 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 negative counseling statements and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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:  28 August 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No 

Counsel:  None

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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20130004347



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1