1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 20 December 2015 b. Date Received: 4 January 2016 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 effect, he would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to receive help from the government. The applicant contends he had trouble talking to people and sleeping at night after his deployment, which made him do drugs. After testing positive, he never did it again. It has been 10 years and he has been doing the right thing, he has been clean, and contends that the only thing keeping him from going forward is his discharge. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 2 February 2005 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 19 January 2005 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: used cocaine (between 11 and 14 June 2004); and, AWOL (18 July 2004 until 20 July 2004). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 19 January 2005 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 January 2005 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 September 2001 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 3 months, 5 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait/Iraq (23 September 2002 to 11 August 2003) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, PUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of DD Form 2624, dated 7 July 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 4865 during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 14 June 2004. Summary Court-Martial, dated 6 October 2004, for going AWOL (from 18 July 2004 until his return on 20 July 2004) and wrongfully using cocaine, a controlled substance (between 11 and 14 June 2004). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $795 pay for one month (suspended for 90 days), and 45 days hard labor without confinement. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 October 2004, reflects the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriated by his command. Four Personnel Action Forms, dated between 20 July 2004 and 9 August 2004, reflect the applicant's duty status changed as follows: from "Present for Duty (PDY) " to "AWOL," effective 18 July 2004 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 20 July 2004 from "PDY " to "AWOL," effective 2 August 2004 from "AWOL" to "PDY," effective 9 August 2004 The applicant received numerous negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and performance counseling. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 37 days 28 days (AWOL, 14 August to 11 September 2002) / mode of return unknown 2 days (AWOL, 18 July 2004 to 20 July 2004) / mode of return unknown 7 days (AWOL, 2 August 2004 to 9 August 2004) / mode of return unknown j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; letters of support; 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 14-12c(2) terms abuse of illegal drugs as serious misconduct. It continues; however, by recognizing relevant facts may mitigate the nature of the offense. Therefore, a single drug abuse offense may be combined with one or more minor disciplinary infractions or incidents of other misconduct and processed for separation under paragraph 14-12a or 14-12b as appropriate. 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, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant 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 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 that he would like an upgrade for the purpose of being able to receive help from the government. 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. The applicant contends he had trouble talking to people and sleeping at night after his deployment. However, at the time of discharge he had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief and there is no evidence in the record that he ever sought such assistance before committing the misconduct which led to the separation action under review. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. The applicant contends that it has been 10 years, he has been doing the right thing, and that he has been clean. The applicant is to be commended on his personal accomplishments post service. 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. 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 26 April 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 AR20160002150 3