IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140009667 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 of service to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for eight months when the program should have been for three months. He states, he failed the program and discharged from the Army even though he was able to complete his enlistment. He desires to use his Post 9/11 GI Bill to make a better life for himself and become a productive member of society. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 2 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 22 April 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, AR 635-200, Chapter 9, JPD, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: 509th Engineer Company, Fort Leonard Wood, MO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 18 February 2009/3 years, 16 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 2 months, 5 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 2 months, 5 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-3 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 12B10, Combat Engineer m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: GED o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: NIF u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 February 2009, for a period of 3 years and 16 weeks. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and had a General Equivalency Diploma. His record is void of any significant awards of valor and achievement; however, he completed 2 years, 2 months, and 5 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. 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 not authenticated by the applicant’s signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 22 April 2011, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for being an alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and a reentry (RE) code of 4. 3. The applicant’s available record does not show any recorded actions under the UCMJ, unauthorized absences or time lost. 4. On 11 April 2011, DA, US Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Orders Number 101-1328, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 22 April 2011. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: Discharge Orders Number 1010-1328, dated 11 April 2011. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 24 May 2014 and a DD Form 214. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any with his application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. 2. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. 3. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if limited use information is used in the discharge process. 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 "JPD" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JPD" 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 only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the DD Form 214, which was not authenticated by the applicant. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure. 3. For this type of discharge, the applicant would have been enrolled in the ASAP and would have been aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. Inasmuch as the applicant's official record is void of the circumstances leading to his discharge, it is presumed that he was identified as a rehabilitation failure subsequent to his enrollment in the ASAP program. Therefore, it is also presumed that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems, and chose not to avail himself of this opportunity. 4. The applicant's contention about he was enrolled in ASAP for eight months and never released from the program was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service. Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs which is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the Post 9/11 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. 6. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be 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. 7. Therefore, based on the available evidence and the government presumption of 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: 12 June 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) AR20140009667 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1