IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 6 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004427 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 48 months of service with no other adverse actions. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 2 March 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 63rd Ordnance Company, Joint Base Lewis- McChord, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 27 April 2010/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 10 months, 6 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 18 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 080214-080825, NA RA, 080226-100426, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 21E10, Construction Equipment Operator m. GT Score: 97 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 February 2008, for a period of 4 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 27 April 2010, for a period of 3 years. He served in Germany and did not earn any significant awards of valor and achievement. He completed 4 years and 18 days of total active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 19 December 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense), specifically for failing to obey a lawful general order on 6 October 2011 and wrongful possession of spice in his barracks room and vehicle. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 19 December 2011, 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 3 January 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 separated on 2 March 2012, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: NIF, 6 October 2011, synthetic cannabinoids 2. Article 15, dated 4 November 2011, for disobeying a lawful general order on 6 October 2011, and wrongful possession of spice in his barracks room and vehicle. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $975 per month for one month (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. MP Report, dated 13 October 2011, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failing to obey a order by possessing spice in his barracks room and vehicle. 4. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 6 December 2011, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and had no psychiatric diagnoses. The applicant had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury. He was not referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 6 February 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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, 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. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a FG Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order and possessing spice. 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 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. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. 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: 6 February 2015 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) AR20140004427 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1