IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	19 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012250
___________________________________________________________________________

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 assured after completing his punishment he could continue his career and subsequently discharged.  He was an immature 20 year old who gave into temptation.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		1 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			27June 2006
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			71st Chemical Company, 8th Special Troops 							Battalion, Schofield Barracks, HI
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	1 April 2004, 6 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	2 years, 2 months, 27 days
h. Total Service:			2 years, 2 months, 27 days
i. Lost time:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist
m. GT Score:				NIF
n. Education:				HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:			Hawaii
p. Combat Service:			None
q. Decorations/Awards:		NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR
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 1 April 2004, for a period of 6 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist.  His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and achieved the rank of PFC/E-3.  He was serving at Schofield Barracks, HI when his discharge was initiated.  



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 9 May 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongfully using methamphetamines a controlled substance.

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 9 May 2006, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and declined the opportunity to do so, 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 31 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 discharged from the Army on 27 June 2006, 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. 

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  An Article 15, dated 15 November 2005 for wrongfully using methamphetamines a controlled substance (050713-050720); the punishment consisted of reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $692 pay x 2 months ($692 pay suspended), extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (suspended), (FG).

2.  He received a negative statement, undated for being recommended for separation under Chapter 14-12c. 

3.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 January 2006, which indicated the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, can distinguish right from wrong, and possesses sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate in any administrative or judicial proceedings.


4.  The record of evidence contains three positive urinalysis reports, one coded PO (Probable Cause), dated 20 September 2005, two coded IU (Inspection Unit) dated 6 September 2005 and 20 July 2005, all were for amphetamines, d-methamphetamines and methamphetamines. 

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a statement, unsigned, and a DD Form 214.

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, 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 a Field Grade Article 15, a negative counseling statement, and three positive urinalysis reports.

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 assured after completing his punishment he could continue his career and he was subsequently discharged.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this contention.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge.   

5.  Further, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.   The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record.

6.  The applicant further contends he was an immature 20 year old who gave in to temptation.  The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

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:  19 February 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

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)		AR20130012250



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1