IN THE CASE OF:	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:	11 April 2014

      CASE NUMBER:	AR20130013369
___________________________________________________________________________

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 is trying to return to school to better his life and the lives of those around him.  He realizes he made some bad choices, but currently, positive change is his focus.  In his self-authored statement, in pertinent part and in effect, he states that he normally would not ask, except he feels as though he suffered long enough.  He is trying to move forward with his life.  He details the events involving his best friend who suffered a fatal gunshot wound to the neck.  He was ill equipped to dealing with the situation and it led him to turning to alcohol—he had bad issues in the past with alcohol.  To make a bad situation worse, in his state of drunkenness, he was offered cocaine.  He was hurting inside and made another poor decision that cost him his career, the Army.  He also went AWOL for approximately three days.  However, realizing that he was headed down the wrong path, he returned to his duty station and spoke to a chaplain.  At that point in time, he tested positive for cocaine and his discharge status was changed from medical to a gross misconduct.  He is not contesting his behavior or trying to shift blame.  He made some very bad choices and feels he has to live with his friend’s death every day of his life and it is debilitating.  He is rated 100 percent service-connected disability with a diagnosis of PTSD as a result of that night.  This is why he is asking to change his discharge status so that he may pursue the best possible future for himself and his family.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

	a.	Application Receipt Date:	18 July 2013
	b.	Discharge Received:	General, Under Honorable Conditions
	c.	Date of Discharge:	3 March 2003
	d.	Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:	Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 
			14-12c(2), JKK, RE-3
	e.	Unit of assignment:	C Co, 5th Bn, 20th IN RGT, 3rd Bde, 2nd ID 
			(SBCT), Fort Lewis, WA
	f.	Current Enlistment Date/Term:	13 March 2002,
	g.	Current Enlistment Service:	0 years, 11 months, 22 days
	h.	Total Service:	2 years, 01 month, 26 days
	i.	Time Lost:	None
	j.	Previous Discharges:	ARNG (010108-010212) / NA
			IADT   (010213-020312) / HD
	k.	Highest Grade Achieved:	E-3
	l.	Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantryman
	m.	GT Score:	110
	n.	Education:	GED
	o.	Overseas Service:	None
	p.	Combat Service:	None
	q.	Decorations/Awards:	NDSM; ASR
	r.	Administrative Separation Board: 	No
	s.	Performance Ratings:	None
	t.	Counseling Statements:	None
	u.	Prior Board Review:	No 

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:  

The applicant served in the Army National Guard and later enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 March 2002, for a period of 3 years.  He was 29 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED); however, records further show he had one year college.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman.  His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  He completed 2 years, 1 month, 26 days of active duty and reserve service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence shows that on 20 February 2003, 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 misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for wrongfully using cocaine (021118-021125).

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 February 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected to 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 24 February 2003, 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 3 March 2003, for misconduct (drug abuse), under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), with an SPD Code of JKK, and an RE code of 3.

6.  The service record shows a period of time lost for 6 days, AWOL (120919-120924); the mode of return is unknown.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  Field Grade Article 15 imposed on 30 January 2003, for wrongfully using cocaine (021118-021125); his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $575.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction.

2.  Company Grade Article 15 imposed on 6 December 2002, for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on two occasions (021115 and 021121), disobeying an NCO (021105); his punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $304.00 per month for one month, 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

3.  The record also contains the results of a urinalysis coded as IR (Inspection Random), dated 25 November 2002, that was positive for cocaine.

4.  Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 November 2002, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol dependence, antisocial personality disorder.

5.  Memorandum, dated 24 January 2003, subject: Article 15 Proceedings [the applicant], rendered by the ASAP Clinical Director, provides a summarized rehabilitative status report regarding the applicant’s ASAP enrollment. 

6.  Memorandum, dated 22 January 2003, subject: Article 15 Proceedings [the applicant], rendered by the applicant’s counsel, provides that the basis for the Article 15 was being improperly used against the applicant, in violation of the limited use policy, when he sought help from a chaplain on 22 November 2002 and informing the acting first sergeant after using drugs but three days prior to the random urinalysis.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

The applicant provided a self-authored statement; VA letter, dated 12, 2003, confirms the applicant’s care through VA clinic; a newspaper obituary clip; VA letter, dated 15 July 2013, which certifies the applicant’s service-connected disability.

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 his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s service record and the issue 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.  His record of service was marred by two Article 15 actions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

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 evidence in the record regarding counsel’s contention that the Soldier's disclosures to his chain of command and chaplain three days prior to testing positive on a random inspection (IR) urinalysis did not bring the results of the UA within the protections of the limited use policy.  Army Regulation 600-85, subparagraph 10-12a(6) protects UA results that reflect use prior to admission to ASAP.  However, it further stipulates that "[t]he limited use protection will not apply to test results, which indicate alcohol or other drug abuse occurring after the voluntary submission to the rehabilitation program."  The statements from ASAP indicate the Soldier self-referred on 22 August 2002, and the UA that reflected he had used cocaine was collected on 25 November 2002.  Contrary to the counsel's assertion, the Soldier was self-referred three months earlier, and not on 22 November 2002.  Therefore, the UA coded IR was not protected by the limited use policy.  The evidence in the record further shows a status update from ASAP that mentions the Soldier's self-referral, which was not protected by the limited use policy because the statement was apparently introduced into the separation packet by the Soldier as matters for consideration on his behalf—the status update was being provided at the request of the Soldier.  It was apparently introduced to demonstrate the Soldier was making progress in rehabilitation and should be given more favorable consideration by the separation authority.   

5.  The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a 100 percent service-connected disability for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the events the night his friend was fatally wounded.  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 22 November 2002, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he 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 he was suffering from alcohol dependence and further being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and subsequently with PTSD after his discharge; he 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 applicant has expressed his desire to pursue the best possible future for himself and his family, perhaps relating to 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.

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.  Accordingly, 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:  11 April 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)		AR20130013369

Page 7 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1