1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 25 March 2016 b. Date Received: 30 March 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, a change to the narrative reason for separation, and a change to the RE code. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that his discharge was based on one isolated incident in over six years of service with no other adverse action. The applicant states that he did not know Adderall contained amphetamines or he would not have taken it. He had never been in trouble before and regrets his irresponsible decision but feels his honesty admitting his mistake to his command worked against him, as he witnessed others in ASAP were given more chances to remain on duty. In addition, the applicant states that he did not fight to stay in the Army because he had just received news that his father's cancer was back and was aggressive. The applicant felt that he needed to be with his father, rather than being tied to a legal battle in Fort Riley. The applicant contends that his discharge was excessive for the mistake he made and that the Army he once trusted betrayed him. Since his discharge, the applicant has had some success in the job market, got married, started a family, and has gone to school to get his Airframe and Power Plant License, as well as his AAS in Aviation Maintenance Technology. He has maintained a 3.75 GPA and made the Dean's List. The applicant would like an upgrade to open up some job opportunities, either in the police force working within the scope of aviation or a part of a Life Flight or rescue team as a mechanic and possibly a crew member. In a personal appearance hearing conducted in San Antonio, TX on 21 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. single drug use of non-prescribed medication (Adderall), not a pattern of abuse), post service accomplishments (i.e. building a family, employment, and college degree and Dean's List) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense), the separation code to JKQ, and the reentry code to RE-3. (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: 20 September 2013 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: 24 September 2014 / 2 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 15T10, Helicopter Repair / 7 years, 2 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 28 June 2006 to 13 June 2007 / HD RA, 14 June 2007 to 11 March 2010 / HD RA, 12 March 2010 to 23 September 2012 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (9 September 2009 to 16 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: AM, AAM, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: NIF i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with attachments listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant has had some success in the job market, got married, started a family, and has gone to school to get his Airframe and Power Plant License, as well as his AAS in Aviation Maintenance Technology. 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. 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). 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 General, Under Honorable discharge characterization to Honorable, a change of the narrative reason to misconduct, and a change to his RE code. 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 the discharge from the Army. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. 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 stated he feels his honesty in admitting his mistake to his command worked against him, as he witnessed others in ASAP were given more chances to remain on duty. However, 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. The applicant's contentions about his honesty and integrity, his father's illness, and feeling of betrayal by the Army 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 that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted no additional documents. b. The applicant presented no additional contentions. c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None. 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted in San Antonio, TX on 21 March 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. single drug use of non-prescribed medication (Adderall), not a pattern of abuse), post service accomplishments (i.e. building a family, employment, and college degree and Dean's List) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable and changes to the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Serious Offense), the separation code to JKQ, and the reentry code to RE-3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Serious Offense) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JFQ/ Change to RE code to 3 f. Restore 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 AR20160006957 1