IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	22 November 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130009531
___________________________________________________________________________

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 an isolated incident during 46 months of honorable service with no adverse action.  He desires to receive VA benefits.  He participated in over 200 raids on high value targets during three deployments.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		16 May 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			30 April 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			D Co, 2-75th Ranger Regiment, Joint Base 							Lewis-McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	3 June 2009, 4 years and 19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 10 months, 28 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 10 months, 28 days
i. Lost time:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B1V, Infantryman
m. GT Score:				121
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan X 3 (101018-110129), (110829-111027) 						and (120627-121020)
q. Decorations/Awards:		AGCM, ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-W/2 CS, GWOTSM 						ASR, NATO MDL, CIB, RNGR TAB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 June 2009, for a period of 4 years and 19 weeks.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B1V, Infantryman.  His record also shows that he served three combat tours, earned an ARCOM and a CIB; and he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  He was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA when his discharge was initiated.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 10 April 2013, 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 for wrongfully using marijuana (130212).

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 17 April 2013, the applicant consulted 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.  

4.  On 17 April 2013, 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 service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

6.  The applicant was discharged from the Army on 30 April 2013, 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 28 March 2013 for wrongfully using marijuana (130212); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $758 pay x 2 months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

2.  The record of evidence contains a positive urinalysis report coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 14 March 2013 for marijuana.

3.  He received two negative counseling statements, dated 26 March 2013 and 1 April 2013 for failing a urinalysis test and being separated due to failing an urinalysis for THC.

4.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 29 March 2012, which indicated the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command, including discharge under Chapter 14.

5.  A DA Form 8003 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Enrollment, dated 1 April 2013 which indicated the applicant was command referred to the program.


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 the applicant’s record of service, his 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 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 a Field Grade Article 15, two negative counseling statements, a positive urinalysis report and an ASAP enrollment.

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 his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 46 months of honorable service with no adverse action.  Although an isolated 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 an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization of service.  The applicant's isolated incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

5.  The applicant further contends he participated in over 200 raids on high value targets during three deployments.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding was carefully considered.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

6.  The applicant desires to receive VA benefits.  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 records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

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:  Records Review   Date:  22 November 2013   Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

Counsel:  NA

Board Vote:
Character  	Change:  2	No Change:  3
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 RE Code to:			No Change
Grade Restoration to:			NA
Change Authority for Separation:		No Change
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)		AR20130009531



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1