IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	11 December 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130010306
___________________________________________________________________________

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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge so that she may use her Post 9/11 GI Bill.  She states she is required to take random drug tests for her employment with the government.  She contends she is a combat veteran diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and she has not used marijuana since 2006 and have been clean for seven years.  She is now prescribed medications and able to deal with her PTSD and anxiety.  She states she has been employed at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center for seven years and would like to pursue a career in social work.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			24 May 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				6 June 2006
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, Drug Abuse, AR 635-200, 
Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				364th Supply Company, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		2 September 2003/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 9 months, 5 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 9 months, 5 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist
m. GT Score:					94
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (040616-041113)
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 2003 for a period of 4 years.  She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  She earned two AAMs and completed 2 years, 9 months, and 5 days of active duty service.  At the time her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 20 April 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), by reason of commission of a serious offense-abuse of illegal drugs.  Specifically for testing positive during a unit urinalysis conducted on 21 February 2006, for the use of marijuana.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3.  On 1 May 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in her own 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 an general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 17 May 2006, 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 was separated on 6 June 2006, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 
14-12c(2), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4.

6.  The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.  

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.   There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record:

 	IR, Inspection Random 21 February 2006, marijuana

2.  Article 15, dated 21 March 2006, for wrongful use of marijuana at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, between on or about 23 January 2006 and 21 February 2006.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, and 30 days of extra duty (FG). 

3.  Two negative counseling statements dated between 6 and 8 March 2006, for report of a positive drug test result and recommendation for an FG Article 15 under UCMJ for positive urinalysis.



      
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), dated 20 May 2013, Department of Veterans Affairs compensation award letter, dated 23 August 2012, DD Form 214-WS (Worksheet), and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant states she has been employed with the VA Medical Center for seven years. 

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 her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her 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 her 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 of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s record of service was marred by a positive urinalysis test, a FG Article 15, and two negative counseling statements.

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 she would like to use her Post 9/11 GI Bill to attend school and pursue a career in social work.  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.  Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

5.  The applicant further contends she has been diagnosed with PTSD and is now on medication to deal with her PTSD and anxiety. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 23 March 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although she was suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed emotions, she knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation.  Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully.

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

7.  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:  11 December 2013      Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA

Counsel:  yes [redacted]

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)		AR20130010306



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1