IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 July 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140010726 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, his misconduct was a single incident with no other adverse action. He suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while in service; the Veterans Administration (VA) rated him 70 percent disabled. His relevant service record was above average for the years he served, which he was considered a good service member. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 24 June 2014 b. Discharge received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 25 July 2013 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure, Chapter 9 AR 635-200, JPD, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: E Company, 2-4th General Support Aviation Brigade Fort Carson, CO f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 17 January 2013, 3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 6 months, 9 days h. Total Service: 4 years, 2 months, 28 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: RA (090428-130116)/HD k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist m. GT Score: NIF n. Education: College Graduate o. Overseas Service: Southwest Asia p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (110304-111221) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM-W/2 CS GWOTSM, NPDR, ASR, OSR-2, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: No s. Performance Ratings: None t. Counseling Statements: No u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 April 2009, for a period of 4 years and 23 weeks. He was 34 years old at the time of entry and a college graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist. He reenlisted on 17 January 2013, for a period of 3 years and he was 37 years old at the time. His record also shows that he served a combat tour, earned several awards including an ARCOM, AAM, and an AGCM; he achieved the rank of SPC/E-4. He was serving at Fort Carson, CO when his discharge was initiated. 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 digital signature. 2. The DD Form 214 indicates that on 25 July 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for 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 did not reveal any recorded actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). However, he was separated as a PVT/E-1 and the action that caused his reduction is not contained in the service record. 4. On 19 July 2013, DA, US Army Installation Management Command, HQS, US Army Garrison, Fort Carson, Fort Carson, CO, Orders Number 200-0007 discharged the applicant from the Army effective 25 July 2013. 5. The applicant’s record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. The record contains discharge orders number 200-0007, dated 19 July 2013. 2. The record also contains a DD Form 214, dated 25 July 2013. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, letter, Disabled American Veterans, letter, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), and a DD Form 214. The applicant indicated on his application he submitted a VA document which rated him 70 percent disabled. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant did not provide any information 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, his military records, the issues and documents 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 only pertinent evidence available for review regarding the applicant's discharge is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which was authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for alcohol rehabilitation failure with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 3. For this type of discharge, the applicant would have been enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (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 requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. 5. The applicant's contentions regarding his misconduct being a single incident with no other adverse action was carefully considered. There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination as to whether this contention has merit. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his misconduct was a single incident. 6. The applicant further contends he suffered from PTSD while in service; the VA rated him 70 percent disabled. The service record contains no evidence of a PTSD diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 7. Further, the fact the VA granted the applicant service connection disability for a medical condition the applicant suffered while on active duty does not support a conclusion that these conditions rendered the applicant unfit for further service at the time of his discharge processing. The record is void of any medical evidence which indicated the applicant was suffering from a disabling medical or mental condition during his discharge processing that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels 8. The applicant additionally contends his relevant service record was above average for the years he served which he was considered a good service member. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge under review. 9. 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. 10. 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: 23 July 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify: No Counsel: Yes 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: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change 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) AR20140010726 Page 2 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1