IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 30 January 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003600 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he served honorably with no misconduct for over five years. He received multiple decorations and awards, including the Army Good Conduct Medal, deployed twice to Iraq, and promoted to the NCO ranks ahead of his peers. He states that he made a big mistake but even with the misconduct his service was honorable. He contends he has fully recovered and is a productive member of society utilizing the core values he learned in the Army. He desires to use his benefits under the GI Bill to pursue a career in medicine. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 22 February 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 31 May 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 2nd Battalion, 9th Infantry, Camp Casey, Korea f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 31 May 2007/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 6 years h. Total Service: 6 years, 6 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 070525-070530, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 35F10, Intelligence Analyst m. GT Score: 125 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA, Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq, (080312-090217) (100318-110313) q. Decorations/Awards: ICM-3CS, ARCOM-3, AAM-2, VUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NOPDR, ASR, OSR-3 r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 May 2007, for a period of 6 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq and Korea. He earned three ARCOMs, two AAMs and completed 6 years of active duty service. He was serving in Korea when his discharge proceedings were initiated. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 14 May 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for receiving a FG Article 15 on 28 March 2013 and 9 May 2013, for fraternization, violating the curfew policy, and wrongful possession, control, and use of a controlled substance and making a false official statement. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 17 May 2013, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 17 May 2013, 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 separated on 31 May 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 23 January 2013,oxazepam, temazepam, nordiazolam 2. Article 15, dated 9 May 2013, for making a false official statement (130304 and 130313), wrongful use of alprozolam, diazepam, nordiazolam, oxazepam, and temazepam (121008 and 130308), wrongful possessing 120 tablets of diazepam and 20 tablets of zolpidem (130201), and wrongful use of zolpidem (121008 and130308). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $758 per month for two months and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 3. Article 15, dated 28 March 2013, for wrongful consumption of alcohol and staying in a hotel room with a junior Soldier, SPC A, and being off a military installation during the hours of 0100 and 0500. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1,152 pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 4. Two negative counseling statements dated 3 March 2013 and 19 March 2013, for curfew violation and fraternization. 5. Four CID Reports, dated 1 February 2013, 8 February 2013, 22 February 2013, and 6 March 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful possession, control, and use of a controlled substance. 6. Permanent Orders Number 141-001, dated 21 May 2013, revoked the applicant’s second award of the AGCM. 7. Three NCOERs covering the period of 1 September 2010 to 14 February 2013. The applicant was rated as “Fully Capable” on all reports and received a “2/1,” “2/2” and a “2/3” rating from his senior raters. 8. A MP Report, dated 3 March 2013, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for failure to obey a general order-curfew violation. 9. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 March 2013, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could understand the difference between right and wrong and did not have any psychiatric diagnoses. The applicant screened negative for PTSD and mTBI. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an online application, dated 20 February 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any in support of his application. 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, 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 two Article 15s for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a positive urinalysis and two negative counseling statements. 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 contends that he had five years of good service which included multiple awards and two deployments to Iraq. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were 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 repeated incidents of misconduct or by the negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, 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. 6. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. 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: 30 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 1 No Change: 4 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) AR20140003600 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1