IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 19 November 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140016651 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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 her general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable. 2. The applicant states, in effect, she desires to utilize her benefits. She states she was involved in a bad marriage that led to regrettable mistakes. She is no longer married and has been enrolled in college since her separation. She provided letters of recommendation from her superiors. She states the only negative letter against her was from the brigade CSM who stated she was “too bubbly.” DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 23 September 2014 b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 18 April 2011 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 3-227th Assault Helicopter Battalion, Fort Hood, TX f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 12 January 2010/4 years, 30 weeks g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 3 months, 7 days h. Total Service: 1 year, 3 months, 7 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: None k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 25Q10, Multichannel Transmission Systems Operator/Maintainer m. GT Score: 106 n. Education: HS Graduate 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: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 January 2010, for a period of 4 years and 30 weeks. She was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 1 year, 3 months, 7 days of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was serving at Fort Hood, Texas. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. On 24 January 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs (commission of a serious offense). Specifically for: a. receiving a FG Article 15 for one violation of wrongful use of cocaine, a controlled substance (101210), b. receiving a counseling for failing to report on three occasions (100827, 101007, and 100830) and disobeying a direct order to not wear a tongue ring in uniform (100830). 2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended the applicant be retained on active duty. 3. On 2 February 2011, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. On 10 February 2011, the unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army, waived further rehabilitative efforts and recommended a characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 4. On 30 March 2011, 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 18 April 2011, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4. 6. The applicant’s 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 in the record: IU, Inspection Unit, 8 November 2010, cocaine 2. A CID investigation, dated 1 December 2010, reflects the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongful use of cocaine. 3. Article 15, dated 10 December 2010, for the wrongful use of cocaine between 4 November 2010 and 8 November 2010. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $723 pay per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty (FG). 4. Commander’s Report, dated 10 February 2011, reflect the applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) on 21 December 2010. The record is void of the type of referral. 5. MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 22 December 2010, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process, was mentally responsible, and able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong. She received a diagnosis for cocaine abuse. No other psychiatric disorders were noted. There were negative results for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and mTBI. It was noted that the applicant was motivated to remain on active duty. 6. Four negative counseling statements, dated between 27 August 2010 and 3 December 2010, for recommendation for Chapter 14-12 separation, failure to report x 3, and wearing a tongue ring while in uniform. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided a DD Form 293, dated 19 September 2014, a DD Form 214, two DA Forms 4856, dated 15 November 2010 and 3 January 2011, and a mental status evaluation, dated 22 December 2010. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: The applicant states she has been enrolled in college since her separation. 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 her discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her 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 her 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 her service below that meriting an honorable discharge. The applicant’s record of service was marred by a FG Article and four 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 she was in a bad marriage that led to regrettable mistakes. However, she had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that she ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. 5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her discharge would allow the use of benefits through the Department of Veteran Affairs. 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. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. 7. 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: 19 November 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) AR20140016651 Page 6 of 6 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1