IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 13 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140008467 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board noted that the government introduced the results of a command directed urinalysis into the discharge packet. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to honorable. However, the Board found the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and voted not to change it. 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 fully honorable. 2. The applicant states, in pertinent part and in effect, he has some health issues that he needs help with through the VA. He enlisted in the military at age 17 and made several mistakes on active duty. He served with pride and was awarded an ARCOM. He has learned from his mistakes and contributes positively to society. He has been employed since his discharge. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 12 May 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 10 January 2001 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct, AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHT, 2nd Sqdn, 6th Cav, Illesheim, Germany f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 18 August 1998, 4 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 4 months, 23 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 4 months, 23 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 93P10, Aviation Operations Specialist m. GT Score: 114 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: Germany p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; ASR 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 18 August 1998, for a period of 4 years. He was 17 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 93P10, Aviation Operations Specialist. He served in Germany and earned an ARCOM. He completed 2 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active duty service. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 19 December 2000, 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 (serious offense), specifically for wrongfully using a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana (000811-000911). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 3. Subsequently, the applicant consulted with 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 27 December 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2), commission of a serious offense. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 10 January 2001, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct, a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There are two positive urinalysis reports contained in the record: CO, Command Directed, dated 4 October 2000, marijuana, and Basis coded “US” for urinalysis collected on 11 September 2000, marijuana. (Note that it is determined that the specimens collected were the result of a unit sweep; therefore, it should have been coded “IO, Inspection Other.”) 2. Article 15, dated 27 November 2000, for wrongfully using marijuana (000811-000911). The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-3, forfeiture of $503 per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction, (FG). 3. A negative counseling statement, dated 1 December 2000, for being notified of his separation proceedings and being found guilty of possession and wrongful use of a controlled substance. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided none. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states, in effect, he has been employed since his discharge. 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. After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues, and documents submitted with the application, the characterization of service appears to be improper. 2. The record confirms that on 4 October 2000, the applicant was given a command directed urinalysis (CO) and he tested positive for marijuana. The record shows the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of that biochemical test which was coded CO (Command Directed). This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence because the test may have been administered as part of the applicant’s rehabilitation program. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. 3. Accordingly, it appears the discharge was improperly characterized given the introduction of the limited use evidence in the chapter paperwork. However, the question whether the urinalysis was properly coded is a question of fact for the Army Discharge Review Board to determine given the contrary conclusions that could be drawn by the command’s treating the urinalysis as though it was not limited use evidence. The command was either unaware of the implications of the limited use policy or it failed to note in the record the urinalysis was improperly coded. 4. The records show the proper discharge and separation procedures were not followed in this case. 5. Therefore, the characterization of service being improper, recommend the Board grant full relief by upgrading the applicant’s characterization to honorable. However, the reason for the discharge was fully supported by the record and remains both proper and equitable. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 13 May 2015 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? NA Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: Yes Change Characterization to: Honorable 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) AR20140008467 Page 5 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1