IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	6 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130007593
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

2.  He states, in effect, he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) when he returned from Iraq and did not receive any help; he was a good Soldier that returned from combat with PTSD unknowingly; and he was not in his right mind.  He began using marijuana because it helped to ease his mind and keep him calm.  He desires to receive VA benefits to return to college and complete his degree in architectural engineering.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		17 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			29 July 2008
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			HHC, 240th Quartermaster Battalion, 49th Group 						Fort Lee, VA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	27 July 2007, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 3 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 5 months, 19 days
i. Lost time:				2 days
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (060209-070726)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	52C10, Utility Equipment Repairer
m. GT Score:				98
n. Education:				13 years
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (060928-070927)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 2006, for a period of 3 years and 19 weeks.  He was 21 years old at the time of entry with one year of college.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 52C10, Utility Equipment Repairer.  He reenlisted on 27 July 2007, for a period of 6 years and was 22 years old at the time.  His record also shows that he served a combat tour, earned an ARCOM; and achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Fort Lee, VA when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 19 June 2008, 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-abuse of illegal drugs.  Specifically for the following offenses:  

     a.  wrongfully using marijuana (071118-071218)

     b.  wrongfully using cocaine (080410-080417)

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 24 June 2008, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his 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 25 June 2008, 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’s record of service indicates 2 days of time lost during the period of 31 March 2008 until 2 April 2008.  The category of lost time could not be determined from the available record.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 29 July 2008, 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. 

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 14 March 2008 for wrongfully using marijuana (071118-071218); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, reduction beyond E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $754 pay x 1 month (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days, (FG).

2.  On 4 May 2008, the suspension of punishment of reduction to E-2 and forfeiture of $754 pay was vacated for the new offense of wrongfully using cocaine (080410-080417).

3.  An Article 15, dated 9 June 2008 for wrongfully using cocaine (080410-080417); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $673 pay x 2 months (1 month suspended), extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days, (FG).



4.  He received 16 negative/monthly counseling statements, dated between 17 December 2007 and 1 May 2008, for initial counseling, failing to report, late for formation, monthly counselings, failing a urinalysis test on more than one occasion, being identified as a high risk Soldier numerous times, failing to be at his appointed place of duty, not being recommended for promotion to SGT/E-5, missing formation on numerous occasions, testing positive for marijuana and cocaine. 

5.  The record of evidence also contains two positive urinalysis reports coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 18 December 2007 for marijuana and 17 April 2008 for cocaine.

6.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 8 May 2008, which indicated the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command and recommended he continue Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment as prescribed.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, with an issues statement, medical documentation, eight pages, and a Chapter 14 discharge packet, seventeen pages.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any 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.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining his military record, the issues and documents 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 two Field Grade Articles 15, 16 negative/monthly counseling statements, a vacation of punishment, and two positive urinalysis tests.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

4.  The applicant contends he was a good Soldier who returned from combat in Iraq unknowingly suffered from PTSD and did not receive any help.  He was not in his right mind.  The analyst acknowledges the independent medial documents submitted by the applicant are acknowledged, which indicated the he was diagnosed with PTSD and some other mental issues which he was prescribed medications to treat his conditions.  However, these conditions did not overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.

5.  Further, the applicant's available record does not contain any evidence of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD as indicated in the independent documentation and the applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD or any related medical issues indicating the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

6.  Also, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

7.  Additionally, 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 under review.  

8.  Moreover, the applicant could have self-referred to the Community Counseling Center counseling center for assistance if he did not think the mental issues he was experiencing had not been properly addressed.

9.  Furthermore, the applicant contends he began using marijuana because it helped to ease his mind and keep him calm.  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.  

10.  The applicant desires to receive VA benefits to return to college and complete his degree in architectural engineering.  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.

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

12.  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:  6 November 2013   Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  NA

Counsel:  NA

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

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:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
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)		AR20130007593



Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1