IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140006261 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 is based on one isolated incident in his four years of service with no other adverse actions. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 4 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 6 June 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHT, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, CA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 23 March 2012/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 2 months, 14 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 17 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 090317-090519, NA RA, 090520-120322, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91H10, Track Vehicle Repairer m. GT Score: 95 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, NOPDR, 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 Regular Army on 20 May 2009, for a period of 3 years and 25 weeks. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant awards of valor and achievement. He completed 4 years and 17 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Irwin, CA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 29 April 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter14-12c (2), for misconduct, abuse of illegal drugs. Specifically for testing positive for marijuana. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 29 April 2013, 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. On 7 May 2013, 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 6 June 2013, 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 contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Article 15, dated 27 February 2013, for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1 and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 2. A negative counseling statement, dated 21 February 2013, for wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance. 3. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 2 April 2013, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could understand the difference between right and wrong, and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder. The evaluation indicates the applicant was screened for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and a mild Traumatic Brain Injury however, the results of the screening was not annotated on the report. The report also indicates the applicant was in treatment with behavioral health for his symptoms of anxiety and depression. He was psychologically cleared for administrative proceedings deemed appropriate by the command. 4. A CID Report, dated 7 March 2013, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for the wrongful use of marijuana. 5. There is one positive urinalysis report found in the record for marijuana. The test was collected on 11 January 2013 and the test basis was Inspection, Random (IR). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an undated DD Form 293 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 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 and a negative counseling statement. 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 his discharge is based on one isolated incident. However, the available record shows the applicant discrediting entries 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 incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of the applicant’s 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: 10 June 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) AR20140006261 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1