IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 29 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140011685 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to her general, under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she takes full responsibility for every infraction that took place while serving in the military. The applicant contends, since her discharge, she has matured in all aspects of life, learned what it takes to be a member of the team, and requests an opportunity to prove that she can be a great Soldier. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 28 September 2006 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial By Court-Martial, AR 635-200 Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, Fort Benning, Georgia f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 November 2004/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 10 months, 10 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 10 months, 10 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 041104-041116, N/A k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 21C10, Bridge Crewmember m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 2004, for a period of 3 years. She was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She completed 1 year, 10 months, and 10 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Benning, Georgia. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates that on 8 August 2006, the applicant was charged with the following offenses: a. wrongful use of cocaine (060701-060710); b. wrongful use of ecstasy (060608-061010, 060701-060710); c. wrongful use of marijuana (060610-060710); d. wrongful use of Dimethoxyamphetamine (060610-060610); e. wrongful use of D Methamphetamines (060611-060618). 2. On 8 August 2006, the unit commander and intermediate commander recommended trial by Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge. 3. On 16 August 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. The applicant indicated she understood she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant submitted a statement on her own behalf. 4. On 15 September 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request and directed the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 28 September 2006, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 6. The applicant’s record of service does not show any record of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: IU, Inspection Unit, 18 June 2006, D-Methamphetamine, ecstasy, and Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine; IU, Inspection Unit, 10 July 2006, cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana. 2. Three negative counseling statements dated between 11 July 2006 and 26 July 2006, for wrongful use of illegal substances, failure to be at appointed place of duty, and disobeying orders. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 3 June 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Character statement, dated 22 November 2013, authored by SSG OD, states the applicant was a young woman, vulnerable, alone, and on her own for the first time. Although SSG OD does not excuse the applicant’s behavior and notes the applicant has paid for her mistakes, SSG OD states the applicant deserves to have her discharge upgraded based on her post service conduct. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she has attained a college degree without the assistance of the Montgomery GI Bill; overcome her addiction to drugs and has been clean for the last nine years; a law abiding citizen with no arrests or run-ins with the law; and works as a sales consultant. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of her characterization of service was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, the issue and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. 4. The applicant contends that she was young and immature at the time of the discharge. 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. 5. The applicant requests a change to the characterization of her service in order to rejoin the Army; ultimately, to prove that she is a team player and can be a great Soldier. However, at the time of discharge, the applicant received an under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Army Regulation 601-280 stipulates that an under other than honorable conditions discharge constitutes a non-waivable disqualification, thus the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 6. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army she has attained a college degree, overcome her addiction to drugs, a law abiding citizen, and works as a sales consultant. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 7. The third party statement provided with the application speaks highly of the applicant’s performance. It recognizes her good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the person providing the character reference statements was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant’s chain of command. As such, the statement does not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 8. Therefore, the reason and 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: 29 October 2014 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) AR20140011685 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1