IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 29 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140011691 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 admits to his transgressions and has since re-enlisted back into the National Guard. The applicant states he has become a mentor and is now an NCO. He is currently enrolled in college, completed 48 units, and in the process of transferring to a four year university. The applicant contends he must remove the blemish from his record in order to qualify for OCS and to show other Soldiers that they too can overcome mistakes they’ve made in their lives. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 30 June 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 21 November 2001 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (serious offense), AR 635-200 Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 699th Maintenance Company, National Training Center Corps Support Battalion, Fort Irwin, California f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 10 November 1999/3 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 12 days h. Total Service: 2 years, 12 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 991025-991109, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 63W10, Wheel Vehicle Repairer m. GT Score: 93 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: None p. Combat Service: None q. Decorations/Awards: ASR r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 1999, for a period of 3 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He completed 2 years and 12 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Irwin, California. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence contained in the applicant’s service record indicates on 27 July 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason misconduct (serious offense). Specifically for testing positive on an urinalysis for methamphetamines. 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 3. On 27 July 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted 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 18 August 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 21 November 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 (serious offense), 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 is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record: IU, Inspection Unit, 22 January 2001, methamphetamine 2. Article 15, dated 9 February 2001, failure to report on 5 occasions (001202 x2, 001204 x2, 001215) and willfully disobeying a lawful order (001119). The punishment consisted of 14 days of extra duty and restriction. (CG) 3. Article 15, dated 7 March 2001, for wrongful use of methamphetamines on or between 15 January 2001 and 22 January 2001. The punishment consisted of reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $521.00 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) 4. Sixteen counseling statements dated between 13 November 2000 and 17 November 2001, for showing up to work late, missing formations, disobeying orders, suspended driving privileges, safety violation, monthly work performance, and recommendation of UCMJ action. 5. A CID Report of Investigation, dated 27 February 2001, that indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of methamphetamine. 6. DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 July 2001, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 24 June 2014, and a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant provided the following documents to reflect his accomplishments since his discharge from the Regular Army: * DD Form 4/1 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document), dated 7 February 2006, Army National Guard of California, * DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment), dated 25 February 2012, Army National Guard of California, * Everest College Official Transcript, dated 29 January 2013, completed 47 credit hours, * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), dated 23 September 2013, Warrior Leader Course, * Victor Valley College Transcript, dated 18 June 2014, completed 48 credit hours. 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 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by two Articles 15, for multiple violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and nine 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 that since leaving the Army he has since re-enlisted back into the National Guard, became a mentor and is now an NCO. The applicant states he is currently enrolled in college, completed 48 units, and in the process of transferring to a four year university. The applicant’s post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application and in the documents with the application. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 5. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character. 6. The applicant contends he must remove the blemish from his record in order to qualify for OCS and to show other solders that they too can overcome mistakes they’ve made in their lives. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 8. 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 October 2014 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) AR20140011691 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1