IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	13 March 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130018780
___________________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to serve his country again and receive his earned benefits.  He contends he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization of service.  He contends his misconduct was the result of going through a lot of depression/anxiety issues because of his prior deployment, anger with his unit, and personal issues with his fiancé at the time.  He also contends he suffers from PTSD.
 
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		10 October 2013
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			30 November 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14 						paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:			HSC, HHB, 82nd STB, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	17 July 2008, 6 years and 25 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:	4 years, 4 months, 14 days
h. Total Service:			4 years, 4 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	74D10, Chemical Operations Specialist
m. GT Score:				110
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia 
p. Combat Service:			Iraq and Afghanistan (The applicant indicates he 						served in Iraq and Afghanistan; however, supporting 						documents were not found in the record)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTEM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		Yes
t. Counseling Statements:		None
u. Prior Board Review:			No




SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 July 2008 for a period of 6 years and          25 weeks.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED).  His record indicates he served in Iraq; achieved the rank of SPC/E-4; and earned several awards to include an ARCOM and two AGCM's.  He was serving at Fort Bragg, NC when separation action was initiated.  He competed 4 years, 4 months, and 14 days of active duty service.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 5 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, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for being found in the possession of a non-controlled synthetic cannabinoid and paraphernalia (120927).

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 6 November 2012, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his own 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 13 November 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 30 November 2012, 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), with 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:

There are no counseling statements or UCMJ actions in the available record.  However, the applicant achieved the rank of SPC/E-4 and was separated as a PV2/E-2.  The action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record.



EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, self-authored statement, letter from the Integrated Treatment Systems, LLC, dated 17 July 2013, letters of support (3), copy of his certificate for award of the ARCOM, AGCM, and three certificates of achievements.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None were provide 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 records, the documents 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 his incident of misconduct.

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 he had good service and deserves an honorable characterization.  However, by regulation, a UOTHC discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct (drug abuse).  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a GD instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  

5.  The applicant contends his misconduct was the result of the medical issues he was experiencing after his deployment, his anger with his unit, and personal issues with his fiancé at the time.  However, he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  

6.  The applicant also contends he was suffering from PTSD at the time of discharge.  The independent post service document submitted by the applicant from the Integrated Treatment Systems, LLC, indicating the applicant has been struggling with PTSD for an extended period of time was noted.  However, the service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

7.  The applicant has expressed his desire to rejoin the Service and receive his earned benefits.  However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4.  An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist.  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.

8.  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.

9.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

10.  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:  13 March 2014     Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify:  No

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)		AR20130018780



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1