1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 February 2016 b. Date Received: 8 February 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 and a change to the narrative reason for separation. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 28 months of service with no other adverse action. The applicant contends that he was forced to provide a urine sample and the NCO, who was observing, placed the applicant's name on the observer's urine sample which was used against him. The applicant states that the NCO, Sergeant W.H. wrote a sworn statement stating that the applicant had not been counseled or briefed and that the commander was not present during the time the urinalysis was conducted. The applicant also contends, he was not counseled or briefed as to why he being administered a urinalysis test; and he was not allowed to speak with an attorney when the incident occurred. The applicant states that he was a strong Soldier that has earned the right to an honorable discharge. He desires the opportunity to fight for his country, his family, and what is right. The applicant would like his rank reinstated to E-4 and to receive the education benefits that he fought for. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 28 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: 19 October 2011 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 September 2011 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant tested positive for the wrongful use of oxymorphone (25 June 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 September 2011 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 28 September 2011 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 September 2008 / 3 years, 19 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / GED / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13B10, Cannon Crewmember / 3 years, 1 month, 3 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea, SWA / Iraq (28 January 2011 to 10 August 2011) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, ADSM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2 g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 September 2011, reflects the applicant had no mental health disease/defect or other such concern at present time. The applicant was cleared from a mental health perspective to proceed with the chapter process. The record contains an Article 15, counseling statement, and a positive drug test, all of which are illegible. However, the only legible document found in the case separation file is the applicant's initial counseling statement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and a sworn statement. 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. 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. 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. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), Misconduct (Drug Abuse). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKK" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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. 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 at the time of his separation. 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 requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 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 "JKK" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident during 28 months of service with no other adverse action. Although an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. The applicant contends that he was forced to provide a urine sample and the NCO, who was observing, placed the applicant's name on the observer's urine sample which was used against him. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was forced to provide a urine sample and the observation NCO put his sample in the cup with his and that it was used against him. The applicant also contends, he was not counseled or briefed as to why he was being administered a urinalysis test; and he was not allowed to speak with an attorney when the incident occurred. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The applicant contends that he was a strong Soldier and that has earned the right to an honorable discharge. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant additionally contends, he would like his rank reinstated to E-4. The applicant was reduced by an Article from the rank of E-4 for misconduct under UCMJ. Therefore, his rank cannot be reinstated. The applicant desires the opportunity to fight again for his country, family and what is right and receive the education that he fought for. 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. Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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 28 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 AR20160003025 1