IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 4 March 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140003883 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he believes he is justified for receiving his full VA benefits according to his record which reflects he was an exemplary Soldier. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 27 February 2013 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 20 December 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 198th Infantry Brigade, Fort Benning, GA f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 27 April 2011, 3 years (per unit commander’s memo) g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 6 months, 25 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 25 days i. Time Lost: 29 days j. Previous Discharges: RA (090825-110426) / HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11B10 Infantryman m. GT Score: 109 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany, SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100701-110427) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM; NDSM; ACM-CS; GWOTSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL; CIB r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 August 2009, and reenlisted on 27 April 2011, for a period of 3 years (NIF), according to his unit commander’s forwarding memorandum and his ERB reflects an ETS date of 4 January 2014. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 Infantryman. He served in Afghanistan and Germany. He earned an AAM. He completed 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 10 December 2012, 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 misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for testing positive for illegal use of THC (marijuana), MET (methamphetamine), and AMP (amphetamine), all Schedule II, controlled substances on two separate occasions (121026-121114). 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 10 December 2012, the applicant waived 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 12 December 2012, 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 20 December 2012, 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), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK, and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant's record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 17 February 2010 through 17 March 2010, a total of 29 days time lost. There is no record on the mode of his return. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 26 October 2012, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana IR, Inspection Random, 14 November 2012, marijuana 2. Record of Supplementary Action Under Article 15, UCMJ, dated 20 November 2012, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (121126). The suspended punishment of a reduction to the grade of E-3 and forfeiture of $462 imposed on 2 October 2012, were vacated, (CG). 3. Article 15, dated 2 October 2012, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on three separate occasions (120917, 120919, and 120920) and failing to obey a lawful general regulation (120918). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $462 (suspended), 14 days of extra duty, and an oral reprimand, (CG). 4. multiple event-oriented and monthly performance counseling statements addressing APFT event failure, failure to repair, failing urinalyses by testing positive for controlled substances, not using the chain of command and being processed for involuntary separation. 5. DA Form 1059, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, dated 29 June 2012, indicates the applicant achieved the course standards of the Warrior Leader Course. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided none. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided none. 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. 4. 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), misconduct (drug abuse). 5. 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. 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 15 actions for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and 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 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of attaining veterans’ benefits. 5. The applicant contends that he was an exemplary Soldier according to his records. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding 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 serious misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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: 4 March 2015 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) AR20140003883 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1