IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	1 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006489
___________________________________________________________________________

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.


1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there are no excuses for his behavior.  Even though he thought Adderall and Concerta were the same type of medication with both of them being amphetamines, he should have never taken the Adderall due to it being an expired prescription with his current prescription being Concerta.  Once he found out this fact between the medications, he got scared, panicked and was not honest about it.  He was in a very stressful Nursing program and without any support.  He respectfully disagrees with his discharge characterization of service in the Army.  He believes his discharge characterization was unfair, unjust, and inequitable.  This was the only mistake in his 3 years, 9 months and 15 days of service.  Since his discharge, he and his family is suffering undue hardships.  He is having a difficult time in obtaining a State nursing license and meaningful employment.  He is not disputing the facts of the case, because the facts are true and accurate.  This was a one-time incident/mistake and should not solely be used to judge his character, integrity, and professionalism and should not affect him and his family for the rest of their life. 

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			1 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions 
c. Date of Discharge:				19 December 2012				
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Unacceptable Conduct, AR 600-8-24 								paragraph 4-2b, JNC, NA
e. Unit of assignment:				B Company, Troop Command, Dwight David 							Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort 								Gordon, GA 	
f. Current Entry Date/Term:			OAD 5 March 2009, 54 months 		
g. Current Term Net Active Service:		3 years, 9 months, 15 days	
h. Total Service:				4 years, 10 months, 2 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			USAR (080217-090304), NA	
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			O-3
l. Branch:					66H 8A, Medical-Surgical Nurse
m. GT Score:					NA
n. Education:					College Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				None
p. Combat Service:				None
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		No  
s. Performance Ratings:			Yes
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No



SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant was appointed as a Reserve Commissioned Officer on 17 February 2008.  He was 22 years old at the time and a college graduate.  He was OAD on 5 March 2009.  The applicant’s record shows no acts of valor or meritorious achievements other than the awards listed in the paragraph above.  He was serving at Fort Gordon, GA when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 4 May 2011, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, due to unacceptable conduct.  

2.  The applicant was directed to show cause for retention in the Army based on the following offenses:

	a.  On 7 July 2011, he submitted a urine sample during a Command Directed Unit Urinalysis Inspection, which later tested positive for D-Amphetamine.  A Medical Review Officer determined that he did not have a valid prescription for a drug which could have caused the positive urinalysis result and he did not have a legitimate use for the drug.

	b.  He provided a false statement to a special agent of the Criminal Investigation Division stating that he did not use amphetamine.  He knew this statement to be false and later confessed to using Adderal from an expired prescription.

	c.  Conduct unbecoming of an officer as indicated by the above-referenced misconduct.

3.  Based on the above offenses, the Commanding General (CG), Headquarters, United States Army Signal center of Excellence, Fort Gordon, GA, indicated he was recommending the applicant’s discharge from the Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

4.  The applicant’s election of rights is not contained in the available record.  However, the unit commander indicated in the notification letter that he was suspending the separation action for 30 days, to allow the applicant with the opportunity to exercise his right to consult with legal counsel.  On 3 September 2012, the unit commander recommended separation from the US Army Reserve (USAR).  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

5.  The company, battalion, and brigade commanders recommended approval of the applicant’s elimination from the US Army with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

6.  On 11 September 2012, the CG, Headquarters, United States Army Signal Center of Excellence, Fort Gordon, GA, considered the applicant’s additional matters and recommended separation from the US Army, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

7.  The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board reviewed the resignation in lieu of elimination tendered by the applicant based on misconduct and moral or professional dereliction.

8.  On 20 November 2012, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.   

9.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 19 December 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.

10.  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 successful OER covering the period 17 February 2008 through 16 February 2009.  The rater assessed him as Outstanding Performance/Must Promote and the senior rater as Best Qualified.  

2.  Academic Evaluation Report (090522), AMEDD OBLC, the applicant achieved course standards.  

3.  Academic Evaluation Report (110815), US Army Anesthesia Nursing program, the applicant was released due to compassionate reasons and experiencing stress.  

4.  Academic Evaluation Report (100618), US Army Graduate PGM in ANES, the applicant achieved course standards.  

5.  The record also contains the results of a urinalysis coded as IR (Inspection Random), dated      7 July 2011, that was positive for D-Amphetamine.

6.  A CID Report, dated 27 January 2012, and A GOMOR, dated 4 May 2012, pertaining to the reasons for discharge.

7.  A counseling statement, dated 1 February 2012, for wrongful use of a controlled substance.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

DD Form 293, a self-authored statement, an OER, 4 character reference letters, an Officer Record Brief (ORB), a Curriculum Vitae, and DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application. 

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-24, Officer Transfers and Discharges, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of commissioned and warrant officers.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.

2.  AR 600-8-24, paragraph 1-22a, provides that an officer will normally receive an honorable characterization of service when the quality of the officer’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.

3.  A general under honorable conditions characterization of service will normally be issued to an officer when the officer’s military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A separation under honorable conditions will normally be appropriate when an officer submits an unqualified resignation or a request for relief from active duty under circumstances involving misconduct which renders the officer unsuitable for further service, unless an under other than honorable conditions separation is appropriate.

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It identifies the SPD code of "JNC" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, AR 600-8-24, paragraph 4-2b, for unacceptable conduct.

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JNC." 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s service record and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge or a change to the narrative reason for separation.  

2.  The record confirms that 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 service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  

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 his discharge was unjust, unjust, and inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident.  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.  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.  

5.  The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

6.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included 3 years, 9 months and 15 days.  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.  

7.  The applicant requested that the narrative reason for the discharge be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 635-200 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unacceptable Conduct," and the separation code is "JNC."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  

8.  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:  1 November 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)		AR20130006489

Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1