IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 29 May 2015 CASE NUMBER: AR20140011021 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, he has changed his life and maintained permanent employment since his discharge. He states, he has matured since serving in the military, has grown to be a productive member of society and is no longer involved in extracurricular activities, because he now understands the importance of maintaining good health and employment. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 16 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 15 March 2012 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 505th Quartermaster Battalion, APO AP, Japan f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 2 October 2010/5 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 5 months, 14 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 1 month, 26 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist m. GT Score: 102 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA, Japan p. Combat Service: Afghanistan (100610-110604) q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-2CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL r. Administrative Separation Board: NA s. Performance Ratings: NA t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 23 weeks. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He reenlisted on 2 October 2010, for a period of 5 years. He served in Japan and Afghanistan, earned an ARCOM and completed 3 years, 1 month, and 26 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Japan. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 6 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for testing positive for marijuana on 18 October 2011. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 6 March 2012, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 7 March 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was separated on 15 March 2012, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3. 6. The applicant’s record contains no evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IU, Inspection Unit, 18 October 2011, marijuana 2. Article 15, dated 9 January 2012, for wrongful use of marijuana on 18 October 2011. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $733 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and 30 days of restriction with an escort (FG). 3. DA Form 8003 (ASAP Enrollment), dated 5 December 2011, reflects the applicant was command-referred for enrollment to ASAP for a positive urinalysis. 4. Two negative counseling statements dated 5 December 2011 and 3 January 2012, for positive urinalysis and referral to ASAP. 5. A mental health evaluation, dated 10 January 2012, reflects the applicant was command-referred for evaluation. The applicant was found to be mentally responsible, competent to understand the consequences of his actions, and had no psychiatric, psychological or substance abuse conditions. He had a negative screening for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 5 June 2014, a DD Form 214, and two letters of support. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states since his discharge he has been a productive member of society, is no longer involved in such extracurricular activities, and now recognizes the importance of maintaining good health and employment. 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 record of service, his military records, the documents and the issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 2. The record confirms that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a FG Article 15, a positive urinalysis test and two negative counseling statements. 3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. 4. The applicant contends he has changed his life completely, is a productive member of society and no longer is involved in such extracurricular activities. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments are to be commended; however, in review of the applicant’s entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 5. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 6. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 29 May 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) AR20140011021 Page 2 of 5 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1