IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	9 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130006927
___________________________________________________________________________

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

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he believes his discharge was inequitable and harsh based on 2 incidents in nearly 8 years of service to his country.  He contends he served 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and was awarded an Honorable Discharge and nearly 4 years in the U.S Army.  At the time of discharge he was going through a difficult time in his life having to deal with a divorce and losing custody of his 2 children.  He is now remorseful for his misconduct.  He has heard that other Soldiers committing worse offenses than his have received lighter punishments and he believes this is unfair.  He has no civilian criminal record and has been a model citizen for the past 13 years.  Because of his current characterization of service, he has not been considered for any government jobs even though he qualifies with experience.  He sincerely apologizes for his wrong doings and hopes that it will be taken into consideration his honorable service to the US Marine Corps and to our country.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		8 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			11 July 2000
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200							Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			Spt Co, 1st USASPT SINA, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 October 1996, 4 years (The applicant extended his 						enlistment 6 April 1999 for a period of 3 months, 						giving him a new ETS date of 30 December 2000)
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 9 months, 11 days
h. Total Service:			10 years, 05 months, 23 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		USMC-800325-840323/HD									USMCR-840324-860324/NIF									   (Break-in-Service)											USAR-960119-960221/NA										ADT-960222-960412/UNC										USAR-960413-961030/NIF
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	88M10, Motor Transport Op
m. GT Score:				105
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Yes
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		AAM, AGCM, MCGCM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:	

After serving in the United States Marine Corps and United States Reserves the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1999, for a period of 4 years, and later extended his enlistment for 3 months.  He was 35 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  His record indicates he earned an AAM, AGCM, and the MCGCM.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC at the time separation action was initiated against him.  He completed 10 year,       5 months and 23 days of total military service.  The applicant's DD Form 214 under review indicates he had 12 years, 4 months, and 16 days of total prior inactive service; however, it appears the applicant was credited with inactive service during the period 25 March 1986 through 18 January 1996 which he should not have received credit for as a result of a break in service.  The applicant served overseas while in the USMC, the dates served were not found in record.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 26 April 2000, 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) for testing positive for cocaine, on 8 December 1999

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended an under other than honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 22 May 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended approval of the conditional waiver and that the applicant be separated with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 13 June 2000, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, 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 11 July 2000, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ 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 memorandum, dated 22 December 1999 "Positive Drug Testing Results" which indicates the applicant tested positive for cocaine on 8 December 1999.

2.  Article 15, imposed on 15 March 2000, for the wrongful use of cocaine between (991205 and 991208).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $503.00 pay per month for two months, and restriction for 60 days (FG). 

3.  A copy of the ADAPCP Outpatient Biopsychosocial Evaluation and personal history questionnaire which shows the applicant received an Article 15, January 1998 for domestic violence.  Punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $519.00 for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction of 45 days (suspended).  Documents supporting this Article 15 were not found in the record.

4.  A counseling statement dated 20 March 2000, which informed the applicant about initiation of separation for misconduct IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 14. 
      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, copy of his DD Form 214 for a prior period of honorable service in the United States Marine Corps, and a copy of his DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.

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.

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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense).

5.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

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, 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 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.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by his Article 15 for the wrongful use of cocaine.

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 indicated his desire to have his narrative reason for discharge changed.  However, 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense).  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  

5.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included his prior period of honorable service in the United States Marine Corps.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident 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 incident of misconduct and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The applicant contends at the time of discharge he was going through a difficult time in his life having to deal with a divorce and losing custody of his 2 children.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

7.  The applicant also contends that because of his current characterization of service, he has not been considered for any government jobs even though he qualifies with experience.  The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

8.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

9.  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: 9 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)		AR20130006927



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1