IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010321 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action 1. 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 characterization was improper. 2. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test which was coded CO (Command Directed). This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence because the test was administered because the unit commander had a reasonable suspicion that the applicant was using a controlled substance but did not have probable cause. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. 3. Further, the applicant’s DD Form 214 contains an erroneous reentry code of 3. In view of the error, the Board directed an administrative correction to block 27 to read RE-4, as required by Army regulations. 4. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was proper and equitable and the Board voted not to change it. 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 is unjustified based on his time in service and his deployments. He states the military was downsizing and he was discharged without being present to sign his DD Form 214. He contends he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and this did not help with the decision process. He states, it was difficult to cope with the loss of his Soldiers in Afghanistan. He desires to use his educational and medical benefits. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 9 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 21 December 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), JKK, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment (Rear) (Provisional), Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 23 July 2008/6 years, 16 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 3 months, 3 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 3 months, 3 days i. Time Lost: 56 days j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 112 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Iraq (090806-100618) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, MUC, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR 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 23 July 2008, for a period of 6 years and 16 weeks. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma. He served in Iraq and earned an ARCOM and two AAMs. He completed 4 years, 3 months, and 3 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 8 November 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), for misconduct (drug abuse). Specifically for: a. testing positive for dextroamphetamine and methamphetamines on 21 September 2012, and, b. being AWOL from 25 September 2012 until 9 October 2012 and from 24 October 2012 until 5 November 2012. 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 8 November 2012, 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 14 November 2012, the separation authority waived rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 21 December 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2), misconduct-drug abuse with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant's record shows he was AWOL during the periods of 25 September 2012 through 8 October 2012, 24 October 2012 through 4 November 2012 and 21 November 2012 through 21 December 2012. His mode of return is unknown. 7. The applicant’s service record is void of any actions under the UCMJ. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis report found in the record: CO, Command Directed, dated 21 September 2012, d-amphetamine and d-methamphetamine 2. Several DA Forms 4187, dated between 5 February 2012 and 21 November 2012, reflects changes to the applicant’s duty status. 3. A negative counseling statement, dated 9 October 2012, for being AWOL from 25 September 2012 until 6 October 2012. 4. DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 10 October 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could appreciate the difference between right and wrong, had no psychiatric conditions. He had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and mild Traumatic Brain Injury. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 4 June 2014, a DD Form 214 dated 21 December 2012,, and a verification of military experience and training. 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. After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issue and documents submitted with the application, the characterization of service appears to be improper. 2. The record confirms on 21 September 2012, the applicant was given a command directed urinalysis (CO) and he tested positive for d-methamphetamine and d-amphetamine. 3. If the test basis for the urinalysis was CO, as stated on the collection sheet, there is no indication in the discharge paperwork that the command recognized that the “command directed urinalysis” could not be used as the basis for separation. Further, there is no indication the command believed the urinalysis was improperly coded “CO.” There are also no CID reports or counseling statements that shed any light on the reason the urinalysis was authorized. 4. Therefore, it appears the urinalysis was properly coded CO, the discharge was improperly characterized given the introduction of the limited use evidence in the discharge paperwork. However, the question whether the urinalysis was properly coded is a question of fact for the Army Discharge Review Board to determine given the contrary conclusions that could be drawn by the command’s treating the urinalysis as though it was not limited use evidence. The command was either unaware of the implications of the limited use policy or it failed to note in the record the urinalysis was improperly coded. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the characterization of service being improper, recommend the Board grant relief by upgrading the applicant’s characterization to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 12 June 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 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: Honorable Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: 4 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) AR20140010321 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1