IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 18 September 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20130006569 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he would like an upgrade of his discharge so he can provide for his family and receive funding for school. He contends he has paid for his mistakes and that since his discharge he has stayed out of trouble, is a full-time student, working a full-time job, and doesn't have a criminal background. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 25 March 2013 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 November 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: F Co, 47th CS, Fort Bliss, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 4 August 2009, 4 years and 25 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 3 months, 7 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 3 months, 7 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 101 n. Education: 14 years o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 August 2009, for a period of 4 years and 25 weeks. He was 26 years old at the time and had completed two years of college. He was serving at Fort Bliss, TX when his discharge was initiated. The record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates that on 21 September 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for testing positive for synthetic cannabinoids (110626). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. On 17 October 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 19 October 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 10 November 2011, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded; PO, (Probable Cause), dated 26 June 2011, synthetic cannabinoids. 2. Article 15, issued on 12 September 2011, for wrongfully using Spice products (110626). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733.00 per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG). 3. An CID Report, dated 14 September 2011, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for the wrongful introduction of spice and use of spice. 4. A negative counseling statement, dated 14 September 2011, for notification of initiation of administrative separation procedures under Chapter 14-12c, IAW AR 635-200. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, certificates of achievements and awards, and counseling statements. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states he is a full-time student and working a full-time job, and doesn't have a criminal background. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by his Article 15 for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 3. 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. 4. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding was carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the incident of misconduct. 5. The applicant contends that since his discharge he has become a full-time student, works a full-time job and does not have a criminal background. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, these accomplishments do not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 6. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization 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. 7. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge to be able to provide for his family and receive funding for school. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's 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. 8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 18 September 2013 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: NA Change RE Code to: NA Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20130006569 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1