1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 5 May 2015 b. Date Received: 15 May 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions or honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he proudly served his country prior to 9/11; however, when he was informed he would be going to Iraq and knowing why they were going, he chose not to corporate. He has morals and chose not to kill innocent people for their oil, so he removed himself from the Army by smoking a lot of marijuana and receiving multiple counseling statements. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, 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: Pattern of Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 30 January 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 January 2003 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: continuing lack of respect for noncommissioned officers and other Soldiers; wrongfully possessing and using marijuana; and, committing an assault consummated by a battery. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 13 January 2003 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Waived, 13 January 2003 (6) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 20 January 2003 (GCMCA) / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date/Period of Enlistment: 13 November 2000 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment/Education/GT Score: 24 / GED / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved/MOS/Total Service: E-3 / 63S10, Heavy Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic / 2 years, 2 months, 18 days d. Prior Service/Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service/Combat Service: Germany / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: N/A h. Disciplinary Action(s)/Evidentiary Record: CG Article 15, dated 30 April 2002, for making a false official statement to an NCO on 25 March 2002, (continuation sheet NIF). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $304 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty. DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document – Drug Testing), reports that the specimen rendered by the applicant on 16 August 2002, on IR (Inspection, Random) basis tested positive for THC. CID Report, dated 9 September 2002, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana. FG Article 15, dated 3 October 2002, for wrongfully using marijuana between 18 July 2002 and 16 August 2002. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty. CID Report, dated 10 October 2002, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana. MP Desk Blotter, dated 11 October 2002, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana. Memorandum, dated 15 October 2002, rendered by the ADAPCP Clinical Director, indicates the applicant who was referred on 4 December 2001, was declared a rehabilitation failure on 9 October 2002. Negative counseling statements for being notified of an involuntary separation due to persistent disobedience of orders, disrespecting NCOs, harassing fellow Soldiers, and having positive urinalysis results; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on several occasions; assaulting another Soldier; failing to follow an order or regulation; missing physical training; disobeying an order; leaving his night vision goggle unsecured; leaving physical training without authorization; destroying government property; and violating barracks visiting hours policy. Two DD Forms 2624 (Specimen Custody Document – Drug Testing), report the following: The specimen rendered by the applicant on 18 September 2002, on IU (Inspection, Unit) basis tested positive for THC. The specimen rendered by the applicant on 16 October 2002, on a CO (Command Directed / Competence for Duty) coded basis tested positive for THC. (Per the legal advisor’s note: “The applicant’s admission to illegal use of marijuana to the CID sometime between 5 October and 10 October 2002. This information would have provided probable cause for the commander to direct the applicant to submit to a urinalysis on 16 October 2002, as evidence of marijuana use can usually be detected within 30 days after its use. The UA should have been coded ‘PO’ (probable cause) which would not have been a violation of the limited use policy. Because the UA appears to have been directed by the commander based on probable cause, it could not have been a ‘command directed’ which by definition is not based on probable cause.” FG Article 15, dated 1 November 2002, for failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on 14 October 2002. The punishment consisted of forfeiture of $511 pay per month for two months (suspended, 35 days of extra duty, and 35 days of restriction (suspended). MP Desk Blotter, dated 5 November 2002, indicates the applicant was the subject of an investigation for assaulted consummated by battery. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 12 November 2002, reports the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. Report of Result of Trial, indicates on 20 December 2002, the applicant was found guilty of the following charges by a summary court-martial and the sentence consisted of forfeiture of two-third’s of one month’s pay or $681.80 and 30 days of confinement: three specifications of violating Article 91, UCMJ, for disrespecting an NCO on 5 November 2002, and striking an NCO on two separate occasions on 5 November 2002, and violating Article 112a, UCMJ, for wrongfully possessing controlled substance. i. Lost Time: None j. Diagnosed PTSD/TBI/Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, dated 5 May 2015, and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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. Paragraph 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions to general, under honorable conditions or honorable. The applicant’s record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. The applicant committed discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicant’s incidents of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and were prejudicial to good order and discipline. 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, such that he should have been retained. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 3 August 2016, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board denied the request upon finding the separation was both proper and equitable. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change e. Restore (Restoration of) Grade to: NA 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 BH – Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OMPF - Official Military Personnel File TBI – Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP – Military Police – PTSD – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS – Entry Level Status MST – Military Sexual Trauma RE - Reentry UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20150008917 4