IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	19 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130012900
___________________________________________________________________________

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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he did not have any kind of substance abuse problems.  His action was a one-time incident and inexcusable.  He is discharged and still does not have any issues.  He served honorably and did a one-year tour in Afghanistan—he was an outstanding Soldier.  He regrets his actions and fulfilled the required punishment positively so that his discharge would be honorable.  He wanted to serve honorable, separate, and go to school to strive for success.  Now, his options are limited and ask to consider his reason for an upgrade so he can continue with his life.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	11 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	7 January 2013
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
	e.	Unit of assignment:	HHC, 3rd Bn, 21st Infantry Regiment, Fort 
			Wainwright, AK
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	19 August 2009, 3 years, 29 weeks
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	3 years, 4 months, 19 days
	h.	Total Service:	3 years, 4 months, 19 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	None
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-4
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic
	m.	GT Score:	102
	n.	Education:	HS Graduate
	o.	Overseas Service:	SWA, Alaska
	p.	Combat Service:	Afghanistan (110510-120413)
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	ARCOM; AAM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR 
			OSR-2; NATO MDL
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	Yes
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 August 2009, for a period of 3 years and 29 weeks.  He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Afghanistan and Alaska.  He earned an ARCOM and an AAM.  He completed 3 years, 4 months, and 19 days of active duty service. 

1.  The evidence shows that on 19 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for wrongfully using marijuana (120430-120530).

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 21 November 2012, the applicant waived consulting with legal counsel, indicated he understood 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 6 December 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 7 January 2013, for misconduct (drug abuse), under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c(2), with “JKK” SPD code an RE code of 4.

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

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The applicant received a field grade Article 15, dated 16 August 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana (120430-120530); his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $745.00 for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.  (Note that the applicant was discharged as SPC/E-4—there is no record of his reduction in grade being suspended).

2.  The record also contains a positive urinalysis coded as IU (Inspection - Unit), dated 30 May 2012, that was positive for marijuana.

3.  There is no record of any counseling statements.  

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

There applicant provided a local police records check, dated 26 June 2013, that indicates no criminal record and a reference letter, dated 28 June 2013, rendered by a firm he was employed with from March 2006 to March 2009, prior to his enlistment under current review.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None 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 his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s service record, and the documents and 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 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 service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

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 that he had good service which included a combat tour.  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 his serious offense of abusing an illegal drug.  

5.  The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career.  Although a single 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 a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  

6.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge in order to allow him 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.  His further contends his options for succeeding are limited due to his characterization of discharge, perhaps leading up to employment opportunities.  However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

7.  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.  

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:  Record Review       Date:  19 March 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)		AR20130012900

Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1