IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140013047 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s combat service and documentary evidence showing PTSD issues and diagnosis, which may have been the contributing factors in the misconduct that led to his discharge, and as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the following administrative correction to the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 2. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26 and 28, contain erroneous entries. 3. The Board directed the following administrative corrections, in addition to changing the character of service at block 24 to honorable, and reissue of the applicant’s DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority with an honorable character of service: a. change block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c; b. change block 26, separation code to JKQ; and c. change block 28, narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was diagnosed with a service-connected Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He served honorably during combat situations but his enlistment was cut short due to a life-long disability. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 8 October 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: A Co, 2nd Bn, 69th FA, 3rd Bde, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Benning, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 24 October 2001, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 11 months, 15 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 11 months, 15 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 19K10, M1 Armored Crewmember m. GT Score: 113 n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 October 2001, for a period of 3 years. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and had a high school equivalency (GED). He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 19K10, M1 Armored Crewmember. His record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement. He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 15 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 16 September 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense), specifically for wrongfully using marijuana. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 17 September 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on 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 29 September 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 8 October 2003, 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, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 3. 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 a positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 10 December 2003, marijuana. 2. Article 15, dated 8 February 2003, for wrongfully using marijuana (021110-021210). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $575 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 3. Several negative counseling statements, dated between 12 November 2002 and 2 July 2003, for having a review of his bar to reenlistment; disrespecting an NCO; for having an approved bar to reenlistment; receiving a FG Article 15; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; testing positive for marijuana; underage drinking; fighting; and lying to the executive officer and a senior NCO. 4. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 August 2003, indicates the applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. The report stated that no mental health problems were seen which required disposition through medical channels. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided VA rating decision correspondence, dated 13 February 2014; POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 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 documents and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. However, the service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered the reason for separation as misconduct, authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), and SPD code of JKK. However, the separation authority approved the discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense). AR 635-5-1, (Separation Program Designator Codes) and Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. 3. 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 an Article 15 action for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous negative counseling statements. 4. 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. 5. The applicant contends the Veterans Administration has granted him a service connected disability for PTSD. However, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 27 August 2003, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear and normal. It appears he knew the difference between what was right and wrong. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition who have completed their service successfully. 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. However, recommend the Board direct the following changes: a. change block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c; b. change block 26, separation code to JKQ; and c. change block 28, narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). BOARD DETERMINATION AND DIRECTED ACTION After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s combat service and documentary evidence showing PTSD issues and diagnosis, which may have been the contributing factors in the misconduct that led to his discharge, and as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the following administrative correction to the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 2. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25, 26 and 28, contain erroneous entries. 3. The Board directed the following administrative corrections, in addition to changing the character of service at block 24 to honorable, and reissue of the applicant’s DD Form 214, as approved by the separation authority with an honorable character of service: a. change block 25, separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c; b. change block 26, separation code to JKQ; and c. change block 28, narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense). SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 28 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No 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: Misconduct (Serious Offense) Change Authority for Separation: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: Separation Program Designator (SPD) code 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) AR20140013047 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1