IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 1 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140004779 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge characterization to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was irresponsible with his actions and made some bad decisions that he now regret. He would like the opportunity to move in the right direction and get a positive outlook on life. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 10 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 26 November 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 2nd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Fort Drum, NY f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 6 September 2011/3 years, 27 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 2 months, 21 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 2 months, 21 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 91B10, Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic m. GT Score: 88 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 2011, for a period of 3 years and 27 weeks. He was 19 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 1 year, 2 months, and 21 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Fort Drum, NY. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 6 September 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12b, patterns of misconduct. 2. On 16 October 2012, the unit commander again notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct (drug abuse), Specifically for; the wrongful use of marijuana and possessing paraphernalia in the barracks room and a POV. 3. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 4. On 16 October 2012, the applicant waived his right to consult 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. 5. On 2 November 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 6. The applicant was separated on 26 November 2012, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4. 7. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are four positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 18 June 2012, marijuana IR, Inspection Random, 3 July 2012, marijuana PO, Probable Cause, 10 August 2012, marijuana IU, Inspection Unit, 4 September 2012, marijuana 2. Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) Repeat Positive Detail Report, dated 26 September 2012, shows the applicant’s had three positive urinalysis tests between 18 June 2012 and 10 August 2012. 3. Article 15, dated 30 August 2012, for the wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $745 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 4. Article 15, dated 19 July 2012, for making a false official statement. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-2, forfeiture of E-2 pay for one month, 14 days extra duty and restriction, an oral reprimand (CG). 5. Several counseling statements dated between 1 January 2003 and 17 July 2003, for the wrongful use and possession of a controlled substance and positive urinalysis, failing to obey an order or regulation, command direct to ASAP, initiation of a flag and discharge proceedings, UCMJ recommendation, CID appointment, lying to a senior NCO, malingering, failing to report to formation, throwing away his meal card, loss of his military ID card, and initial and monthly performance counseling. 6. Six CID Reports, dated 24 July 2012, 25 July 2012, 2 August 2012, 15 August 2012, 30 August 2012 and 4 September 2012, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for the wrongful use of marijuana (120724, 120725, 120815 and 120904), wrongful introduction of marijuana (120802) and failing to obey a general order (120802 and 120830). 7. A DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 14 September 2012, reflects the applicant had no obvious impairments, could understand the difference between right and wrong and was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and occupational problems. The applicant screened positive for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; however, he had a negative screening for mild Traumatic Brain Injury. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an undated DD Form 293, a statement of support from the Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 15 April 2014, VA Form 21-4138, dated 15 April 2014, 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, 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 that 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15 for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, four positive urinalysis tests for marijuana use and numerous 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 he regrets his irresponsible actions and would like the opportunity to move forward with his life. However, 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. 5. The applicant’s service record contains documentation that supports a diagnosis of in service PTSD; however, a careful review of the entire record reveals that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The record shows that on 14 September 2012, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates he was able to recognize right from wrong. It appears the applicant’s chain of command determined that although he was suffering from PTSD, he knew the difference between what was right and wrong as indicated by the mental status evaluation. Further, there are many Soldiers with the same condition that completed their service successfully. 6. Further, the applicant admits in a CID Report, dated 24 July 2012, that he allowed a group of people to blow marijuana in his face as he inhaled the smoke. He attests that he knew he had marijuana in his system by the way he was feeling. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 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: 1 May 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) AR20140004779 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1