1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 14 January 2016 b. Date Received: 27 January 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident in his 30 months of service with no other adverse action. He explained his positive urinalysis to his commander because it was days out from his unit deploying. His command attached him to a different unit where the applicant contends, the commander of that unit treated him differently. The applicant filed an EO complaint against the commander and that is the reason he strongly believes he received a UOTH discharge. His record will reflect he was an outstanding Soldier, who received three AAMs within 23 months, was recognized with an NTC award, and who would have made a great leader. The applicant contends that did not receive a behavioral health assessment, properly out-processed, nor did he receive any medical evaluations. An upgrade would allow him back into the Army and receive his benefits. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 12 April 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 21 November 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 29 October 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully used marijuana three times; and, were AWOL on divers occasions (15 May 2012 until 24 May 2012; 30 May 2012 until 6 June 2012; 12 June 2012 until 13 June 2012; 26 July 2012 until 30 July 2012; and 15 October 2012 until 29 October 2012). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 29 and 31 October 2012, and 7 November 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 7 November 2012 (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 8 November 2012 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 May 2010 / 3 years, 18 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 97 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 2 years, 4 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 21 May 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 8 May 2012. Negative counseling statements for testing positive during a urinalysis; disobeying a commissioned officer; disobeying a senior NCO; indiscipline and AWOL ramifications; revocation of pass privileges; restriction to the unit area; being AWOL several times; and having an unregistered firearm (pistol) in his POV on post. FG Article 15, dated 11 May 2012, for wrongfully using marijuana on divers occasions (between 30 March 2012 and 6 April 2012). The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $745 per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Eight Personnel Action forms, dated between 16 May 2012 and 7 November 2012, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: from "Present for Duty (PDY)" to "AWOL," effective 15 May 2012 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 24 May 2012 from "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 30 May 2012 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 6 June 2012 from "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 12 June 2012 from "AWOL" to "PDY, effective 13 June 2012 from "PDY" to "AWOL," effective 26 July 2012 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 30 June 2012 from "PDY" to" AWOL," effective 15 October 2012 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 29 October 2012 from "PDY" to "Confinement Civilian Authorities (CCA)," effective 5 November 2012 from "CCA" to "PDY," effective 6 November 2012 i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 52 days 9 days (AWOL, 15 May 2012 to 23 May 2012) 7 days (AWOL, 30 May 2012 to 5 June 2012) 1 day (AWOL, 12 June 2012 to 12 June 2012) 4 days (AWOL, 26 July 2012 to 29 July 2012) 14 days (AWOL, 15 October 2012 to 28 October 2012) 17 days (Confinement, 5 November 2012 to 21 November 2012) (Note: The mode of return for each AWOL status was the "applicant returned to his unit") j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided 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 14-12c(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, paragraph 14-12c(2), for Misconduct (Drug Abuse). 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions) or honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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, 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 marred the quality of his service. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or sufficient evidence that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends an incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his 30 months of service with no other adverse action. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends he explained his positive urinalysis to his command, but received no behavioral health assessment or treatment. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends his record will reflect he was an outstanding Soldier, who received three AAMs within 23 months and he was recognized with an NTC award. However, his current record does not support his contention. The applicant contends the discharge was inequitable because he filed an EO complaint against his commander and feels he received an UOTH discharge as a result of the complaint and that he was not out-processed properly, nor did he receive any medical evaluations. His contentions were carefully considered. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. The applicant contends an upgrade would allow him back into the Army and receive his benefits. However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist. Further, eligibility for veterans' 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. 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 12 April 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 AR20160003127 1