1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 December 2015 b. Date Received: 28 December 2015 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in pertinent part and in effect, he believes his chain of command should have done more by getting him into treatment for his drug and alcohol issues. His two incidents of misconduct occurred in the last year of his Active Duty, which was preceded with numerous awards. Since his discharge, the applicant entered and completed treatment-he has been clean and sober. He is looking forward to starting school at a university in Fall of 2016. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 March 2017, 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 November 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 October 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: wrongfully used marijuana, a controlled substance (between 13 May and 12 June 2002); disobeyed a lawful command given by CPT B (2 February 2002);. failed to report to school guard duty (26 October 2002); and, was incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties due to wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor (6 February 2002 and 26 October 2001). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 9 October 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 7 November 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 8 September 2000 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 17 / HS Graduate / 120 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 14T10, Patriot Missile Crewmember / 4 years, 4 months, 10 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 14 July 1997 to 7 September 2000 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Germany, SWA / NIF f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4, AGCM, NDSM, AFEM-2, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 6 February 2002, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties (26 October 2001) and failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (26 October 2001). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $758 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. FG Article 15, dated 15 July 2002, for wrongfully using MDM, a controlled substance (between 11 April 2002 and 14 April 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 and restriction. DD Form 2624, dated 8 May 2002, reflects the applicant tested positive for MDMA during an Inspection, Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 14 April 2002. Negative counseling statements for implications of his activities during his alcohol-related incidents; being under influence of alcohol while on duty; ADAPC (Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control) failure; having a .28 blood alcohol content; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time; testing positive for ecstasy during a unit urinalysis; conduct unbecoming of an NCO; disobeying his battery commander by consuming alcohol; being found passed out in the NCO barracks laundry room; and being involved in numerous alcohol-related incidents. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; DAV Cover letter, dated 22 December 2015; and DD Form 214. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant entered and completed treatment-he has been clean and sober. 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 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies the SPD code of "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record further 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 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 on Active Duty. The applicant contends his chain of command failed to enroll him in a treatment program for his drug and alcohol issues. However, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self-referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. Moreover, evidence shows he was an Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control failure due to his continued use of alcohol, and received numerous counseling for alcohol-related issues. The record shows the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends he is looking forward to starting school at a university, perhaps through the use of the GI Bill. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of obtaining veterans' benefits. 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 8 March 2017, 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 / Issue a New Separation Order: 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: No Change Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer 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 NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20160000500 1