1.	APPLICANT’S NAME:  

	a.	Application Date:  15 May 2015

	b.	Date Received:  18 May 2015

	c.	Counsel:  Yes

2.   REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION:  An upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge characterization to honorable.  The applicant states, in effect, he would like an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to continue his pursuit of higher education.  He contends as a young man he made mistakes during his redeployment from war.  He succumbs to temptations while attempting to readjust to stateside life.  Now as a more mature individual and father, he is pursuing a higher education.  He wishes to correct his previous transgressions and is working towards that goal.  In a personal appearance conducted at Arlington, Virginia on 10 August 2015, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 

	(Board member names available upon request.)

3.	DISCHARGE DETAILS:

	a.	Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization:  Misconduct/AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2)/JKK/RE-3/General, Under Honorable Conditions

	b.	Date of Discharge:  6 November 2002

	c.	Separation Facts:  

		(1)	Date of Notification of Intent to Separate:  18 September 2002

		(2)	Basis for Separation:  The applicant was informed of the following reasons:  

			Wrongfully using marijuana on one occasion,

			Disobeying and disrespecting noncommissioned officers, and 

			Unlawfully storing a weapon in his barracks room

		(3)	Recommended Characterization:  General, Under Honorable Conditions

		(4)	Legal Consultation Date:  Evidence in the record shows the applicant declined legal counsel

		(5)	Administrative Separation Board:  None

		(6)	Separation Decision Date/Characterization:  16 October 2002/General, Under Honorable Conditions

4.	SERVICE DETAILS:

	a.	Date/Period of Enlistment:  5 November 1997/4 years (Documents extending the applicant's enlistment were not found in the record).  The DD Form 214 under review does indicate in the remarks section the applicant completed his 1st term of service.

	b.	Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score:  17/HS Graduate/100

	c.	Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service:  E-4/19K10, M1 Armor Crewman/           4 years, 11 months, and 9 days

	d.	Prior Service/Characterizations:  None

	e.	Overseas Service/Combat Service:  Southwest Asia/Kuwait (Period of service NIF)

	f.	Awards and Decorations:  ASR

	g.	Performance Ratings:  None

	h.	Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record:  Article 15, imposed on 24 January 2002, for being disrespectful in language towards a noncommissioned officer 18 November 2001, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer x 2 on 18 November 2001, on one other occasion he disobeyed a lawful order from two noncommissioned officers, and was disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer on 18 November 2001.  The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $342.00 pay per month for one month, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; IU (Inspection Unit), 22 May 2002, THC.

Article 15, imposed on 10 June 2002, for violating a lawful general regulation by wrongfully storing a loaded 25 mm pistol in his barracks wall locker.  The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $552.00 per month for two months (both suspended) and extra duty and restriction for 45 days, (FG).

CID Report of Investigation dated 21 June 2002, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation for the wrong use of marijuana. 

Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 9 July 2002, which vacated the suspension of punishment imposed on 10 June 2002 of reduction to E-1 and forfeiture of $552.00 per month for two months.  Vacation was based on the wrongful use of marijuana between 23 April 2002 and 22 May 2002.


A Record of Trial by Summary Court-Martial, dated 18 September 2002, for the wrongful use of marijuana between 22 April 2002 and 22 May 2002.  The applicant was sentence to forfeiture of one half of one month pay and confinement for 30 days.

Several negative counseling statements dated between 18 November 2001 and 21 June 2002, for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer, possession of an unregistered firearm in the barracks, wrongful use of marijuana, suicide threat, mental difficulties, and deficiencies in duty performance.

	i.	Lost Time:  The applicant’s record of service indicates 23 days of time lost for his confinement by military authority on 18 September 2002, until his release on 11 October 2002, as a result of his summary court-martial punishment.  

	j.	Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health:  None; however, a developmental counseling form dated 21 June 2002, shows the applicant was counseled for suicide threat, mental difficulties, and deficiencies in duty performance.  He was being taken away from his duties for a mental status evaluation.  A copy of that mental status evaluation was not found in the record.

5.	APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE:  DD Form 293, letters of support, and an unofficial transcript.

6.	POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS:  The applicant provided documents showing he is attending school at the Harris School of Business.

7.	REGULATORY CITATION(S):  Chapter 14 allows for separation for misconduct with paragraph 14-1 allowing for separating personnel because of minor disciplinary infractions; a pattern of misconduct; commission of serious offense; conviction by civilian authorities; desertion; or absence without leave.  Paragraph 14-2 states action will be taken to separate a Soldier for misconduct when it is clearly established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him/her as a Soldier further effort is not likely to succeed; rehabilitation is impracticable or the Soldier is not amenable to rehabilitation.

Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct.  It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense.  Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate.

8.	DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S):  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.  

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; Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ; a Summary Court-Martial; and several negative counseling statements.

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.  

The applicant seeks relief contending as a young man he made mistakes during his redeployment from war.  He succumbed to temptations while he was attempting to readjust to stateside life.  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.

The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of being able to continue his pursuit of a higher education.  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.

The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.  

9.	BOARD ACTION DIRECTED:

	a.	Issue a new DD-214:  		No
	
	b.	Change characterization to:  	No Change

	c.	Change Reason to:  			No Change

	d.	SPD/RE Code Change to:  		No Change

	e.	Restoration to Grade:  		NA


Authenticating Official:



COL, US ARMY
Presiding Officer 
Army Discharge Review Board
Legend:
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  
FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry	                Honorable Conditions 	
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

AR20150008964



2