IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	27 September 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130005601
___________________________________________________________________________

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, his discharge was based on an isolated incident of a drug screen when he was deemed an unfit Soldier.  His discharge is preventing him from obtaining good jobs.  He does not think he belongs in the same category as veterans.  He would like to have access to VA health and educational benefits, specifically, because he paid into Montgomery GI Bill for a full year.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	18 March 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	29 October 2002
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) 
			JKK, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Co C, 1st Bn, 16th Infantry, Fort Riley, KS
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	11 July 2001, 3 years
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 3 months, 19 days
	h.	Total Service:	1 year, 3 months, 19 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None 
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None 
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	105
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 2001, for a period of 3 years.  He was 17 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 1 year, 3 months, and 19 days of active duty service.



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 8 October 2002, 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 misconduct (serious offense).  Specifically, for wrongfully using amphetamines and methamphetamines, assaulting another Soldier, and missing formations on divers occasions.

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 8 October 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 17 October 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 was discharged from the Army on 29 October 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. 

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 is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record:  IU, Inspection Unit, 8 July 2002, methamphetamine and amphetamine.

2.  Article 15, dated 29 August 2002, assaulting a Soldier (020624), wrongfully using amphetamines (020611-020613), and wrongfully using methamphetamines (020613).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $550 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 

3.  Eight negative counseling statements, dated between 7 February 2002 and 12 September 2002, for lacking discipline during PT; displaying poor attitude; missing formations; wrongfully using and possessing a controlled substance; and being a high risk for a long weekend.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided none.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states 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 an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous 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 the incident, a drug screen, which caused his discharge, was the only one in his entire Army career.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  Although the applicant contends a single incident, the applicant’s record documents additional incidents of misconduct, which adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

5.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill and health.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.

6.  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.  

7.  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:  27 September 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)		AR20130005601

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1