1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 17 February 2016 b. Date Received: 19 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. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he exceled in the Army and was awarded an Army Commendation Medal for his meritorious service. The applicant states that despite his bad decision, his commanding officer recommended an Honorable discharge based on his history of exemplary service in the Army. The applicant contends that he was punished twice without the opportunity for rehabilitation, which he believes was above and beyond punishment. The applicant states that one bad choice does not have to affect an entire career. He would like to move forward in life, be a good role model for his children, and be a positive reflection of the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 April 2017, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. wife's infidelity and loss of children; equine therapy helping to deal with issues) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and the Board voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 1 May 2007 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 2 April 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant participated in a company urinalysis after block leave and tested positive for THC (marijuana) (20 February 2007). (3) Recommended Characterization: Honorable (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 April 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 5 April 2007 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 7 January 2003 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 92R1P 5W, Parachute Rigger / 4 years, 3 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (6 February 2006 to 12 April 2006) and Iraq (6 October 2006 to 6 October 2007) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTSM, ICM, NCOPDR, ASR, CAB, g. Performance Ratings: September 2005 thru November 2005, Among The Best 1 December 2005 thru 30 November 2006, Fully Capable 1 December 2006 thru 12 March 2007, Fully Capable h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Biochemical Test Results, dated 7 March 2007, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 105 (marijuana) during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 23 February 2007. Developmental Counseling Form, dated 7 March 2007, for wrongful use of controlled substance. FG Article 15, dated 12 March 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (20 January 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $989.25 pay per month for two months, and extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (suspended for 180 days). Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 March 2007, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant was mentally responsible with clear a clear thinking process. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 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 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. 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 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 be retained on active duty. The applicant contends that he had good service, which included two combat tours. 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 is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that he was punished twice without being given the opportunity for rehabilitation. However, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d(2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, 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. The applicant contends the single incident did not have to affect his entire career, resulting in a discharge. Although a single 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 a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 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 would like an upgrade in order to enhance his employment opportunities. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 determined the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (i.e. wife's infidelity and loss of children; equine therapy helping to deal with issues) mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and the Board voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD/RE Code to: No Change f. Restore 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 AR20160004572 1