1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 24 February 2016 b. Date Received: 1 March 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was cheated out of his awards for deploying overseas. He was also denied the chance to go to court following his test results. He has not obtained a good job to help support his family. He was not processed out correctly, he did not go to dental. He was not treated equally because he failed a prior test and knew that he was clean, but his commander said differently. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 16 June 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 12 March 2004 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Charges Were Preferred: 8 January 2004 (2) Basis for Separation: The evidence of record contains a DD Form 458, Charge Sheet which indicates on 16 November 2006, the applicant was charged with the following offenses; wrongfully use Marijuana between (11 September 2003 and 29 September 2003); wrongfully possess approximately one gram of Marijuana (21 November 2003); and violate a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully concealing an unregistered and loaded weapon, a Bryco Arms 9mm pistol, under the seat in his automobile on Fort Benning (21 November 2003). (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 February 2004, the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. (5) Administrative Separation Board: (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 27 February 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 February 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 years / HS Graduate / 90 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11M10, Fighting Vehicle Infantryman, 3 years, 1 month, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 28 February 2003, for wrongful use of marijuana between (9 November 2002 and 9 December 2002); reduction to PVT / E-1, forfeiture of 4675 pay for two months, remaining punishment is illegible. A negative counseling statement, dated 16 October 2003, for testing positive for marijuana (second offense). CID Report of Investigation, dated 23 October 2003, revealed the applicant was under investigation for wrongful use of marijuana. Military Police Report, dated 22 November 2003, relates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for traffic violations, driving on a suspended license, carrying a concealed pistol/revolver, on post. Three positive urinalysis tests coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 9 December 2002, 2 January 2003 and 29 September 2003, all for THC. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and DD Form 2-1 (four pages). 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority at the time of discharge. The applicant seeks relief contending, he was cheated out of his awards for deploying overseas. 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 that he deprived of his awards for deploying overseas. The applicant further contends, he was also denied the chance to go to court following his test results. The evidence of record shows that the applicant requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant also contends, he has not obtained a good job to help support his family. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant additionally contends, he was not processed out correctly, he did not go to dental. The evidence of record does not support that the applicant requested a dental appointment or an examination. Lastly, the applicant contends, he was not treated equally because he failed a prior test and knew that he was clean, but his commander said differently. 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. 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 16 June 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160005164 3