1. APPLICANT’S NAME: a. Application Date: 13 June 2014 b. Date Received: 20 June 2014 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade to general, under honorable conditions. The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was unjust because he was a good Soldier and recently promoted. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 22 July 2015, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. (Board member names available upon request.) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 31 August 2000 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458, Charge Sheet: On 20 July 2000, the applicant was charged with four specifications of violating Article 112a, UCMJ: * wrongfully possessing 10 grams of marijuana on 25 March 2000, and * wrongfully using marijuana between 8 February 2000 and 8 March 2000, 8 April 2000 and 8 May 2000, and 24 April 2000 and 24 May 2000. (2) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to applicant’s request for discharge UP Chapter 10, In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial. (3) Recommended Characterization: 1 August 2000 / UOTHC (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 July 2000 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 10 August 2000 / UOTHC 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 7 May 1997 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 95 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-5 / 96B10, Intelligence Analyst / 6 years, 11 months, 21 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: RA (10 September 1993-6 May 1997) / HD e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-3; AGCM-2; NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: Yes h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: * Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). * FG Article 15, dated 29 November 1999, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 22 September 1999 and 22 October 1999). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 and 45 days of extra duty. * MP Report, dated 6 April 2000, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for found contraband. * CID Reports, dated March 2000 and November 1999, indicate the applicant was the subject of an investigation for testing positive for marijuana. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: None 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 8. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE(S): The applicant, seeking relief, contends his discharge was unjust because he was a good Soldier who was recently promoted. The record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. His record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority and it does not support an upgrade to an honorable or a general discharge at this late date. The applicant contends he was a good Soldier. His service accomplishments were determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated serious incidents of misconduct. In view of the foregoing, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a new DD-214/Issue new Separation Order: No b. Change characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change e. Restoration to Grade: No Change Authenticating Official: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board Legend: 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 FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry Honorable Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20140011019 1