IN THE CASE OF:	

      BOARD DATE:  	16 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006177
___________________________________________________________________________

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 under other than honorable to general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The applicant states in his self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, he served three years in the Army and while on active duty, he developed arthritis in both hips as a result of strenuous physical training and being in the airborne unit.  He feels he was treated a little unfairly due to his injury.  He detailed his treatment.  He relates that after seeking other means to sooth his pain, a friend offered him what he thought was a “Tylenol,” and was told he would feel really good seeing that he was in a lot of pain.  However, much to his chagrin, it turned out to be ecstasy or MDMA.  The next morning, his unit had a urinalysis and he came up “hot.”  He was taken off jump status and was investigated.  He came up “hot” again after he saw his friend.  He was court-martialed and discharged.  He has since not had any kind of drug, prescription or nonprescription.  It scared him a bit and dealt with his pain.  He also moved to a colder climate that is causing him hip and back pain every day.  He does not have adequate medical insurance.  He also enrolled in college.  He would like to be able to have the educational and health benefits. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	27 March 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	Under Other Than Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	16 December 2005
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	Company E, 507th Infantry Battalion, 1 ABN, Fort 
			Benning, GA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 August 2002, 5 years 
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 4 months, 4 days 
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 4 months, 4 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	92R1P, Parachute Rigger
	m.	GT Score:	110 
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	None 
	p.	Combat Service:	None 
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	AGCM; GWOTSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	NIF
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	NIF
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No 



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 2002, for a period of 5 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92R1P0, Parachute Rigger.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 16 December 2005, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKK and a reentry (RE) code of 4.  

3.  The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  However, he was separated as a PV1/E-1, either as a result of being separated under other than honorable conditions and/or the action that may have caused his reduction prior to his discharge is not contained in the service record.

4.  On 8 December 2005, Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA, Orders Number 342-2208, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 16 December 2005.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

There is no counseling statement or UCMJ action in the record. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided no further evidence.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states, in effect, he is enrolled in college, and had no incidents being involved in any kind of drugs since his discharge.  

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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) by reason of misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant's contentions about his medical conditions were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

5.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record.

6.  The applicant has expressed his desire to have the benefits of the GI Bill and health.  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.

7.  The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he has not been involved with drugs and is enrolled in college.  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, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

8.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief.


SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review         Date:  16 October 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)		AR20130006177

Page 2 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1