IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 8 December 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140013913 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was a young private and not quite ready to be an adult. His sister that raised him and was his best friend passed away; he had no support 2,000 miles from home. His commander did not enroll him in Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and afford him the opportunity to correct his life. He requests his negative OMPF files to include the separation files and pre-separation checklist be expunged. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 5 August 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 11 July 2003 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: B Co, 1-501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, Fort Richardson, AK f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 June 2002, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 1 month, 6 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 1 month, 6 days i. Lost time: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10, Infantryman m. GT Score: 114 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Alaska 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 applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 June 2002, for a period of 4 years. He was 17 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10, Infantryman. His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and he achieved the rank of PV2/E-2. He was serving at Fort Richardson, Alaska, when his discharge was initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 30 May 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 of misconduct (commission of a serious offense); specifically, for the following: a. for using cocaine, and b. breaking restriction. 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 20 June 2003, the applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and declined the opportunity to do so, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not indicate if a statement was or not submitted 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 27 June 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 11 July 2003, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ 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. An Article 15, dated 2 April 2003, for wrongfully using cocaine (030104-030204); the punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575 pay for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (FG). 2. The applicant received five negative counseling statements, dated between 18 March 2003 and 28 April 2003, for two positive urinalysis tests, and breaking restriction on three occasions. 3. A positive urinalysis report coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 4 February 2003, for benzoylecgonine, durative of cocaine. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application (six pages), and four DA Forms 2166-8. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant stated in his application he reenlisted in August 2005 and served honorably for the past nine years and on his fifth deployment. He has served in Special Forces since 2009. He is serving in Afghanistan and is scheduled for redeployment in November. 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, the issues and 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 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, five negative counseling statements, and a positive urinalysis report. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous, or that his service mitigated the misconduct, or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends he was a young private and not quite ready to be an adult. 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 further contends his sister that raised him, was his best friend who passed away; he had no support 2,000 miles from home. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 6. The applicant also contends his commander did not enroll him in ASAP and afford him the opportunity to correct his life. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention his commander denied him enrollment in ASAP and the opportunity to correct his life. 7. Further, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. 8. Also, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 9. The applicant requests his negative OMPF files to include the separation files and pre-separation checklist be expunged. The applicant’s request does not fall within the purview of the ADRB. The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), using the enclosed DD Form 149 regarding this matter. A DD Form 149 may also be obtained from a Veterans' Service Organization. 10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 11. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 8 December 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: No Counsel: None 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 RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Change Authority for Separation: No Change 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) AR20140013913 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1