1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 January 2016 b. Date Received: 19 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was young and foolish and would like to have a chance to do something better. The applicant did not present any issues of equity or propriety for the Board's consideration. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 March 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 / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 16 January 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 16 October 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant received two FG Article 15s (13 August 2002 and 3 October 2002) for wrongful use of marijuana. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 9 December 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 December 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 4 January 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 88 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 62E1P, Heavy Construction Equipment Operator / 2 years, 13 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: DD Form 2624, dated 1 August 2002, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 24 July 2002. FG Article 15, dated 8 August 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 24 June and 24 July 2002). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $200 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days. DD Form 2624, dated 6 September 2002, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC (marijuana) during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 28 August 2002. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 1 October 2002, for a positive urinalysis test (marijuana) second offense. FG Article 15, dated 4 October 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 28 July and 28 August 2002). The punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months (suspended) and extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 2 November 2002, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms that 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 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, such that he should be retained on active duty. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will afford him better opportunities. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing opportunities. The applicant contends that he was very young and immature at the time. The record confirms the applicant's youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity. The record also shows the applicant's discrediting entries were incidents of a minor nature. While the applicant's misconduct and poor duty performance were a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, it appears the offenses were partially mitigated by youth and immaturity. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 31 March 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 AR20160002169 1