IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms. 

      BOARD DATE:  	26 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130011102
___________________________________________________________________________

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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was found guilty for using paraphernalia.  She was in the Army for 6 1/2 years, with no disciplinary actions against her.  Upon entering the military she was planning on going to Air Assault School, Drill Sergeant School and retiring after 20 years.  She was promoted to the rank of sergeant within her first 3 years, and wasn’t prepared for the stress that comes with the rank.  Not only was she responsible for Soldiers but she was the supply NCOIC as well.  At the time of her failing the urinalysis, she was in the middle of a divorce and going through a change of command.  Before she knew it she was with the wrong people that she called her “friends”, resorting to marijuana to cope with her problems; instead of seeking help or talking to someone.  She is not a drug addict; she honestly made a mistake that she has truly learned from.  Since her discharge, she is currently a full time student at Los Angeles Southwest College in Los Angeles, CA, pursing her Masters degree in Criminal Justice so she can become a Juvenile Probation Officer.  Due to her type of discharge, she  cannot use her education benefits.  This has caused her to stress financially and not being able to make ends meet sometimes.  She would also like to be able to get a fair chance at a good job without an employer judging her based off her past mistake.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		13 June 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			23 July 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, 14-12c(2), 						JKK, RE-4      
e. Unit of assignment:			Company B, 15th Brigade Support Battalion, 2d						Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort 						Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	24 October 2011, 2 years 
g. Current Enlistment Service:	8 months, 30 days
h. Total Service:			6 years, 5 months, 15 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (060209-111023), HD										RA (080918-111023), HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-5	
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:				91
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			SWA x 3
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (070209-080216, 090317-091220, and 110520-						111119)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM-3, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, ICM-w/CS-3, 						GWOTSM, NPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, MUC
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes	
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 February 2006, for a period of 4 years and 19 weeks.  She was 18 years old at the time of entry and was high school graduate.  She reenlisted 24 October 2011, for a period of two years.  She was serving at Fort Hood, TX when her discharge was initiated.  She was awarded three ARCOMs, an AAM, two AGCMs, and serve three combat tours in Iraq.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the complete 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 authenticated by the applicant’s signature and a copy of the separation authority’s memorandum.  

2.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 23 July 2012, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, 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.  On 3 June 2012, 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 discharged from the Army on 23 July 2012, for misconduct (drug abuse), under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c(2), with an RE code of 4.

6.  The service record does not contain any evidence of time lost.  

7.  The record also contains a positive urinalysis coded as IR (Inspection Random), dated      28 March 2012, that was positive for marijuana.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  One NCOER covering the period 1 October 2010 through 30 September 2011.  The applicant was rated “Among the Best.”

2.  The applicant received a Field Grade Article 15, dated 19 April 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana (on or about 28 March 2012).  Her punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $1,181.00 for two months, suspended, and 45 days of extra duty.
3.  One negative counseling dated 10 April 2012, for being positive for marijuana on a unit urinalysis.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, six character reference letters, and a Certificate of Training from ASAP.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were 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.

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 issues and documents 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 her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature and a copy of the separation authority’s memorandum.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214  identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) by reason of misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant contends the event that caused her discharge from the Army was an isolated incident.  She was in the Army for 6 1/2 years, with no disciplinary actions against her.  Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  

5.   The applicant requests an upgrade of her discharge in order to allow her educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill.  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

6.  The applicant contends she would like to be able to have a fair chance at a good job without an employer judging her based off her past mistake.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

7.  The applicant contends that she was promoted to the rank of SGT  within her first 3 years and was responsible for Soldiers, and just became overwhelmed and made a bad decision.  The applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  

8.  Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge.  

9.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be her 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 government presumption of 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:  26 March 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  1	No Change:  4
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)		AR20130011102



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1