IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	25 October 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130008149
___________________________________________________________________________

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, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident that happened after two and a half years of faithful and honorable service; he knew he would be deployed again soon, this caused him to become depressed and he used marijuana on this one occasion.  He had deployed once to Afghanistan for ten months and was eighteen at the time, had seen dead bodies and the smell of death all around him; he was scared to death, went days without sleeping and was really stressed out due to the constant media attention to the war.  He feels one bad decision should not tarnish what he accomplished in two and a half years of dedicated service.  He hopes to get his discharge upgraded so he can feel like a Soldier who honorably served his country.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		26 April 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27 July 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, 						paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			E Co, 1-501st Aviation Support Regiment, 							Fort Bliss, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	10 November 2009, 3 years and 26 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 8 months, 18 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 8 months, 18 days
i. Lost time:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:				NIF
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (110412-110625)
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, ACM-W/2 CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		NIF
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 2009, for a period of 3 years and 26 weeks.  He was 17 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist.  His record also shows he served a combat tour, but did not earn any awards for acts of valor or meritorious achievements and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Fort Bliss, TX when his discharge was initiated.  

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 not authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 27 July 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under 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 contain any documented actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost.  

4.  On 24 July 2012, DA, HQS, 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, TX, Orders Number 206-0095, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 27 July 2012.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

The record contains discharge orders 206-0095, dated 27 July 2012.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293.

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 available military record 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.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was not authenticated by the applicant's digital signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevails in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident that happened after two and a half years of faithful and honorable service; he knew he would be deployed again soon, this caused him to become depressed and he used marijuana on this one occasion; and he had deployed once to Afghanistan for ten months and was eighteen at the time; he was scared to death, went days without sleeping and was really stressed out due to the constant media attention to the war.  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.  

5.  Further, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

6.  The applicant further contends he feels one bad decision should not tarnish what he accomplished in two and a half years of dedicated service.  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 under review.

7.  The applicant additionally contends he hopes to get his discharge upgraded so he can feel like a Soldier who honorably served his country.  Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the official record or as submitted by the applicant.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.

8.  Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination as to whether the applicant’s contentions had merit.  

9.  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.

10.  Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government 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:  25 October 2013       Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA

Counsel:  LA County VSO
                 Attn:  Mr. Andre Brinney
                 2615 Grand Ave, Suite 100
                 Los Angeles, CA 90007

Witnesses/Observers:  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)		AR20130008149



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1