IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 25 February 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005028 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 characterization to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was not improper or inequitable. He made some wrong decisions while serving in the military that hurt his family. He states, since his discharge he has worked as a government contractor and have not failed a urinalysis test. He states, he has learned from his past failures. He contends since his discharge he has enrolled in college and attends church. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 18 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 December 2004 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: F Company, 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 24 May 2000/5 years (12 months extension as of 041205) g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 6 months, 17 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 6 month, 17 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 000513-000523, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 88M10, Motor Transport Operator m. GT Score: 88 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: GWOTSM, NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 24 May 2000, for a period of 4 years. He extended his enlistment for 12 months on 5 December 2004. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 4 years, 6 months, and 17 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Hood, TX. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 23 November 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for an undetermined amount of marijuana detected through a unit urinalysis on 12 October 2004. 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 23 November 2004, 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 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. The separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 10 December 2004, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an 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. There is one positive urinalysis report found in the record: IU, Inspection, Unit 12 October 2004, marijuana 2. Two counseling statements, dated 18 October 2004, for initiation of a flag action and recommendation for FG Article 15. 3. Commander’s Report, undated, reflects the applicant received a FG Article 15, for wrongful use of a controlled substance. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $596 pay per month for two months and 45 days extra duty and restriction. As a note, the report also indicates the applicant had a mental status evaluation however, the report is not contained in the available record. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 13 March 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states he has been working as a government contractor, attending church, and has not failed a urinalysis since his discharge. 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 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 a FG Article 15 for a positive urinalysis and two negative counseling statements. 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 has been working as a government contractor, attending church and has not failed a urinalysis since his discharge. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on 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. 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: 25 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: Yes Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) Change Authority for Separation: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c Change RE Code to: 3 Grade Restoration to: NA Other: Separation Program Designator (SPD) code to JKQ. 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) AR20140005028 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1