IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 29 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140011955 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she is a changed person currently at a treatment facility to improve her life. The applicant contends that she would like an upgrade in order to use her G.I. Bill to return to college. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 14 June 2006 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 63d Ordnance Company, 80th Ordnance Battalion, Fort Lewis, Washington f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 30 December 2004/4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 5 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 5 months, 15 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 041123-041229, N/A k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 89B10, Ammunition Specialist m. GT Score: 98 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: No p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, 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 30 December 2004, for a period of 4 years. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. She completed 1 year, 5 months, and 15 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Lewis, Washington. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 25 April 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (drug abuse). Specifically for wrongfully using methamphetamines and ecstasy. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 25 April 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement on her 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 31 May 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of general, under honorable conditions.. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 14 June 2006, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant’s service 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: IU, Inspection Unit, 23 January 2006, methylenedioxyamphetamine and ecstasy 2. An Article 15, dated 23 March 2006, for disobeying a lawful order (060201) and wrongful use of “ecstasy” between on or about 16 January 2006 and on or about 23 January 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $636.00 per month for two months, 30 days restriction, and 45 days of extra duty. (FG) 3. Two negative counseling statements, dated 3 February 2006 and 10 April 2006, for testing positive for drugs and abuse of illegal drugs. 4. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 23 March 2006, reflects that the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 8 June 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 2. Letter written by Ms. B states the applicant is ready for a change and moving onto a better life. Ms. B states the applicant experienced severe depression following the death of her grandmother; thus, resulting in the applicant choosing the wrong path in life. Ms. B states the applicant has since overcome her insecurities and is now on the right path to making a better life for her. 3. Hopes and Dreams Riding Facility Letter, date unknown, states the applicant sought out assistance from their establishment for her drug issues. The letter states the applicant is excited and eager to gain control of her life and wants to return to school to further her education. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she is currently at a treatment facility to improve her life. 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 her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her military records, and the documents 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 her 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 her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 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 she is a changed person currently at a treatment facility to improve her life. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. 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: 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) AR20140011955 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1