1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 11 November 2015 b. Date Received: 8 December 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, on or about 23 November of 2014, his unit performed a 10 percent urine analysis wherein he came up positive showing a class II legal substance within his system. He gave statements, spoke with CID, signed counseling forms, received a FG Article 15, and went to the to the Separation Board hearing. The applicant states that he never once wavered from his belief to be the honest truth, he did not know how this came to be in his system. He cannot dispute the black and white results of the positive urinalysis, but he cannot understand how it got there. He stood his ground and rested on his morals, knowing he could lose his career. He researched all avenues of possibilities on what could have occurred to include false positives, OTC, weight supplements and others. All products that where FDA approved where taken into consideration and dismissed as impossible to give such a result. One, which came from China, its label does not show anything that could present a positive result either, but, was not FDA approved. During his hearing, it was stated that it cannot be confirmed what the actual ingredients were within the product. He is not certain that this was the cause, but it is a possibility. The applicant states that he had almost 15 years of impeccable service to his country, deployed four times, and had no disciplinary actions before or the seven months following the urinalysis. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 July 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: NIF (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 March 2012 / Indefinite b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / Associate's Degree / 111 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-7 / 42A44, Human Resources Specialist / 15 years, 2 months, 15 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 9 May 2000 to 16 June 2002 / HD RA, 17 June 2002 to 18 July 2005 / HD RA, 19 July 2005 to 8 March 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, Bosnia, SWA / Bosnia (1 January 2001 to 1 June 2001), Iraq (14 February 2003 to 15 February 2004 and 1 August 2007 to 13 December 2007), and Afghanistan (16 July 2005 to 1 November 2005) f. Awards and Decorations: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, USA/USAF PUC, VUA, AGCM-4, NDSM, ACMA, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, MOVSM, NATOMDL, CIB, EIB g. Performance Ratings: 31 August 2011 thru 26 August 2014, Among The Best 27 August 2014 thru 3 April 2015, Marginal h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624, dated 2 December 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP (amphetamine) and DMETH (methamphetamine), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 24 November 2014. FG Article 15, dated 25 December 2015, for wrongfully using amphetamine/methamphetamine, Schedule II controlled substances (24 November 2014). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,062 pay per month for two months. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application, with all allied documents listed in the supporting documentation information section of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with his application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. Paragraph 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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 (drug abuse). 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant's available record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant's contentions about not knowing how he tested positive for controlled substances, were carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends the reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the SPD code of "JKK" is the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged for drug offenses. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included four combat tours. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. Based on the available record, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 15 February 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214 / Issue a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: No Change AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150018643 1