IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 20 August 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005431 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the discharge was unjust and that she was never a troublemaker. The applicant contends that she was immature and did not know how to deal with her emotional and physical ailments. The applicant further contends that the chain of command made matters worse by spreading rumors. The applicant desires to reenter the military as a reservist. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 21 March 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 22 May 2009 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: C Company, 508th Special Troops Battalion, Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 14 February 2008/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 3 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 11 months, 14 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 060608-060726, NA RA, 060727-080213, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92Y10, Unit Supply Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (070125-080125) q. Decorations/Awards: ACM-CS, JSAM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: No t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 July 2006 for a period of 3 years and 17 weeks. She reenlisted in the Regular Army on 14 February 2008, for a period of 6 years and optioned for 12-month stabilization at Fort Bragg. She was 22 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. She served in Afghanistan, earned a JSAM and an AAM, and completed 2 years, 9 months, and 26 days of active duty service. When the discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 16 March 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense), specifically for wrongful use of marijuana on or about 2 July 2008 and 16 July 2008. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 16 March 2009, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and chose not to submit a statement in her 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 4 May 2009, 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 22 May 2009, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c (2) for misconduct (drug abuse), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 16 July 2008, reflects the applicant participated in a urinalysis test coded as IU. 2. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IU, Inspection Unit, 23 July 2008, marijuana 3. An Article 15, dated 31 July 2008, wrongful use of marijuana between on or about 2 July 2008 and 16 July 2008. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $673 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG). 4. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 March 2009, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. 5. Two counseling statements, dated 31 July 2008 and 5 May 2009, the first for positive urinalysis test for marijuana and the latter notifying applicant of pending Chapter 14 discharge. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: None were provided with the application. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states that she is currently enrolled in school in pursuit of a business degree. 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 14-12c(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 her discharge and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her 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 or a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by an Article 15 for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 3. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the special 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 that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 4. The applicant contends that a change in the narrative reason for the discharge and her reentry code would allow for her reenlistment. However, 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), for drug offenses. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. Further, 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. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 6. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust because she was never a troublemaker. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that she was unjustly discriminated. By regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct. It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for her receiving a general, under honorable conditions instead of the normal UOTHC. The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 7. The applicant contends that she was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 8. The applicant contends that medical issues contributed to her discharge from the Army. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The record shows that on 9 March 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation which indicates she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 9. The applicant contends that her chain of command made matters worse by spreading rumors. However, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. 10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case 11. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 20 August 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No 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) AR20140005431 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1