IN THE CASE OF:  	

      BOARD DATE:  	23 February 2015

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140020245
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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 characterization from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for the discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) two years after his discharge and he blame his behavior and choices on PTSD.  He did not know he was ill, but knew something was wrong.  His PTSD has gotten worse over the years, but with the help from the veteran affairs (VA), he is keeping it under control. 

3.  The applicant contends that the presumption of regularity that might normally permit ADRB to assume that the service acted correctly in characterizing his service as less than honorable does not apply to his case because of the following evidence:

	a.  his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good (or pretty good); his awards and decorations; his letters of recommendation; and his combat service.

	b.  he has been a good citizen since discharge,

	c.  his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity, and

      d.  his personal problems (i.e., use of drugs and alcohol and his psychiatric issues) impaired his ability to serve.

4.  The applicant states, in effect, his request for an upgrade is for educational benefits.  Also, an honorable discharge is needed to be eligible for certain state and federal benefits.  He believes he earned what he is asking for although, he had made a mistake.  

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:			18 November 2014
b. Discharge Received:			General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:				13 January 2004
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code:		Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2) 								JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment:				59th Quartermaster Co, 759th Mil Bn, 								Fort Carson, CO
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:		28 August 2001, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:		2 years, 4 months, 16 days
h. Total Service:				2 years, 4 months, 16 days
i. Time Lost:					None
j. Previous Discharges:			DEP (010813-010827), NA
k. Highest Grade Achieved:			E-3
l. Military Occupational Specialty:		92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist
m. GT Score:					111
n. Education:					HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service:				SWA
p. Combat Service:				Kuwait x2 (030221-030315) (030701-030808)								Iraq (030315-030701) (030221-030808)
q. Decorations/Awards:			NDSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: 		None
s. Performance Ratings:			None
t. Counseling Statements:			Yes
u. Prior Board Review:				Yes
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 August 2001, for a period of 4 years.  He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate.  He served in Iraq, and Kuwait.  The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements.  

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  On 16 December 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense specifically, abuse of illegal drugs for wrongfully using marijuana (030823 and 030922).

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 16 December 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 16 December 2003, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 13 January 2004, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12cx(2), with a general, under honorable conditions, a SPD code of JKK, and a 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.  A positive urinalysis report testing code used IU, dated 1 October 2003 contained in the record indicates the applicant tested positive for marijuana (THC), 22 September 2003.

2.  Article 15, dated 12 November 2003, for wrongfully using marijuana (030823 and 030922).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction to the limits of Fort Carson, CO (FG).

3.  Article 15, dated 3 September 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (020608 and 020708), this punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, to be automatically remitted on (020302) if not sooner vacated, extra duty for 45 days, restriction for 45 days to the limits of Fort Carson (FG). 
      
4.  Two negative counseling statements dated between 14 October 2003, and 8 August 2002, for testing positive on an urinalysis test.

5.  DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), indicated in pertinent part, the applicant had no psychiatric disease, he was mentally responsible, and able to distinguish right from wrong.

6.  DA Form 8003 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Enrollment) indicated the applicant was enrolled in the program for drug use.  He did not meet the criteria for cannabis abuse or dependency, but he did meet the criteria for alcohol abuse.  The applicant was scheduled for alcohol and drug educational classes and outpatient rehabilitation.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 13 June 2014 and a 25 page questionnaire.

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 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 two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and two negative counseling statements.

3.  The applicant contends two years after his discharge he was diagnosed with PTSD.  However, the service record contains no evidence of PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  

4.  The applicant contends he wants to be eligible for state, federal, and educational benefits; 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 his average conduct and efficiency ratings/behavior and proficiency marks were good (or pretty good); his awards and decorations; his letters of recommendation and his combat service.  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 repeated incidents of misconduct and two negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

6.  The applicant contends he has been a good citizen since discharge.  The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

7.  The applicant contends his personal problems, (i.e., drugs and alcohol), and his psychiatric problems impaired his ability to serve.  While the applicant may believe his personal problems was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his problems through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  Further, the DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) dated 4 December 2003, indicated in pertinent part, the applicant had no psychiatric disease, he was mentally responsible, and able to distinguish right from wrong and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. 

8.  The applicant further contends his ability to serve was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  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.

9.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the commands actions was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

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

11.  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: Personal Appearance	 Date:  23 February 2015    Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes 

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

DOCUMENTS/TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE:

1.  The applicant submitted the following additional documents:

	Department of Veterans Affairs Decision of Claim (6 pages)

2.  The applicant presented no additional contentions.

In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional documents, and testimony, presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing.

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:		No Change
Change RE Code to:			No Change
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)		AR20140020245



Page 2 of 7 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1