1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 9 June 2016 b. Date Received: 14 June 2016 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, he was having a very difficult time with personal issues at the time of his separation. He was young and made some unfit decisions. He was going through a divorce as he was forced to watch his wife coming to the barracks and dating other men. He also had a difficult time training for a difficult MOS. His medical issues hindered him from passing his APFTs. His life is stable now. He is a great citizen in his community. An upgrade would allow him to apply for more lucrative job positions. He was a great Soldier, who made the wrong choices. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 August 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: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635-200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 11 October 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 9 August 2006, the following charge was preferred, with recommendations to refer to trial by a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge: The Charge: Three specifications of violating Article 112a, UCMJ, for wrongfully using marijuana between 29 April 2006 and 29 May 2006; wrongfully using methamphetamine between 20 April 2006 and 23 April 2006; and wrongfully distributing marijuana on 28 May 2006. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 25 August 2006 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 21 September 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 18 August 2005 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / None / 1 year, 1 month, 24 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 29 March 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for DAMP 1804 and DMETH during an Inspection, Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 6 March 2006. Negative counseling statement for failing to obey an order or regulation; wrongfully using controlled substance; violating commanding general's policy letter; Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 2 May 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for DAMP 422 and DMETH 442 during an Inspection, Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 23 April 2006. FG Article 15, dated 24 May 2006, for wrongfully using Amphetamine/D-Methamphetamine between 6 February 2006 and 6 March 2006. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636 pay per month for two months, 38 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 7 June 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for THC during an Inspection, Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 29 May 2006. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 8 June 2006, shows the applicant tested positive for THC during an Inspection, Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 31 May 2006. Charge Sheet described at the preceding paragraph 3c(1). i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 9 June 2016. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None provided with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. AR 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 "KFS" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial." The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "KFS" will be assigned an RE Code of 4. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable. The applicant's available record of service and the issues submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran's benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance. The record documents no acts of significant achievement or valor and did not support the issuance of an honorable or a general discharge by the separation authority. The applicant contends that he was having personal issues, such as going through a divorce that affected his behavior and having difficult time training for a difficult MOS, and ultimately caused him to be discharged. However, 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 incidents of misconduct which led to the separation action under review. The applicant contends that he was young and made some unfit decisions at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The applicant contends he had medical issues that prevented him from passing his APFTs, perhaps an indication that he should have been medically discharged; however, Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for a medical condition solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment and in more lucrative job positions. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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 character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 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 25 August 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 new Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. SPD/RE Code Change to: No Change f. Restoration to Grade: 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 AR20160011281 1