IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	26 February 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130012293
___________________________________________________________________________

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is making this request in order to use his educational benefits.  He contends he deserves to be able to attend school and start a career because he paid into the Montgomery GI Bill and deployed to Iraq.  He states he earned one of the most prestigious Army badges, the Expert Field Medic Badge (EFMB) and maintained the highest level of physical fitness.  He graduated basic training and earned the Iron Man Award.  He contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident during his otherwise honorable service.  
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			1 July 2013
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				10 June 2010
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200
Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				547th Medical Company (AS), 56th Multi-
Functional Medical Battalion, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		20 June 2007/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 11 months, 21 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 11 months, 21 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		68W10, Health Care Specialist
m. GT Score:					123
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Iraq (080505-081107)
q. Decorations/Awards:			AAM-2, MUC, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS
ASR, EFMB
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		NA
s. Performance Ratings:			NA
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				No


SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 June 2007, for a period of 4 years.  He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq and earned two AAMs.  He completed 2 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active duty service.  When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 7 April 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs Specifically, for wrongfully using MDMA (Ecstasy) on or between 1 January 2010 and 4 January 2010.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the commander recommended the applicant be retained in the Army.

3.  On 7 April 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement to the separation authority, the applicant requested to be retained in the Army.  He contended he always worked hard to do his best, scored 300 points or better on his Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFTs), and qualified as a Sharpshooter on his assigned weapon.  He stated he know he was an asset to the military and while at home over the New Year’s holiday, he made poor choices and spent time with people who were involved with drugs.  He contended he let his guard down and must have drunk something that contained the drugs he tested positive for.  He would never use drugs again and had never used drugs before.  He requested to complete his enlistment and his upcoming deployment.  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 an unknown date, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 10 June 2010, 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.  Article 15, dated 3 February 2010, for wrongful use of MDMA (Ecstasy).  The punishment consisted of reduction to the pay grade of E-2, forfeiture of $500 pay per month for two months (suspended), to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 May 2010, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG).

2.  Two negative counseling statements, dated 25 January 2010, for a positive urinalysis.  The applicant was counseled by his commander, CPT P and his squad leader, SGT K.

3.  MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 4 February 2010, reflects the applicant had a clear thought process, was mentally responsible, and could distinguish right from wrong.

4.  A memorandum reflecting the applicant tested positive for MDMA (ecstasy) on 4 January 2010, during a unit sweep (IU) urinalysis test.  
 
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD form 293, dated 27 June 2013, and a DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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 records, 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 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 has expressed his desire to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Further, 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.

5.  The applicant contends that he had good service which included a deployment to Iraq and earning the EFMB.  The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents 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 as shown by the use of illegal drugs or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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:  Records Review     Date:  26 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)		AR20130012293



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1