IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 8 August 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140005811 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 did not present any issues of equity or propriety for the board to consider. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 3 April 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 5 August 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: A Company, 4th STB, Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 August 2010/NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 11 months, 16 days h. Total Service: 10 years, 11 months, 13 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 020823-030113, NA RA, 030114-050923, HD RA, 050924-070115, HD RA, 070116-080207, HD RA, 080208-100818, HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-5 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 12B1P, Combat Engineer m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany, SWA, Italy p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (040417-041210), (070505-080721), (091117-101104), Iraq (050429-060428) q. Decorations/Awards: ACM -4CS, ICM-2CS, ARCOM-3, AAM, NAM, AGCM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-4, NATO MDL-2 r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF s. Performance Ratings: Yes t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 2003 for a period of 3 years. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 19 August 2010, for an unknown period of time. He was 27 years old at the time of reenlistment and a high school graduate. He served in Germany, Italy, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He earned three ARCOMs and one AAM. He completed 10 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Carson, Colorado. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The applicant’s service record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 5 August 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a SPD code of JKK, and a RE code of 4. 3. The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded unauthorized absences or time lost. 4. On 14 May 2013, DA Installation Management Command, HQ USAG, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 134-0001, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 30 September 2013. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. A DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing), dated 11 February 2013, reflects the applicant participated in a urinalysis test coded as IR. 2. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IR, Inspection Random, 8 March 2013, cocaine 3. One counseling statement, dated 12 March 2013, for positive urinalysis test for cocaine. 4. Article 15, dated 27 March 2013, for wrongful use of cocaine (130211). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-4, forfeiture of $1201 per month for two months (FG). 5. Five NCOERs covering the period of July 2008 to 27 March 2013. On one report, the applicant was rated as “Among the Best,” on three reports he was rated as “Fully Capable,” and on the remaining report he was rated as “Marginal” by his rater. He received one “1/1” rating, two “2/1” ratings, a “2/2” rating, and a “5/5” rating from his senior rater (SR). EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 26 March 2013, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. 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 military records and the issue submitted with the application, there are insufficient factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the presumption of government regularity prevail in the discharge process. 3. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct (drug abuse), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, it appears that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant would have been protected throughout the separation process. 4. The applicant requests an upgrade of his characterization to honorable. However, by regulation, a 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 his receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge instead of the normal under other than honorable conditions discharge. However, his misconduct clearly diminished his overall record of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 5. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it is his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration because they are not available in the official record. 6. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the presumption of government regularity, it appears the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable, thus recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 8 August 2014 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None 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) AR20140005811 Page 3 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1