1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 6 May 2016 b. Date Received: 5 July 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, that the characterization of serve he received was unjust and inequitable and would like the board to sympathetically review the circumstances and grant proper relief by upgrade his discharge. The applicant contends when he was assigned to the 4-31st Infantry DFAC, he became aware of a situation that violated Army policy and procedures; he reported this to the IG, who then reported to the CID and an investigation was launched (enclosed) into the use of Army property and personnel to provide a dinner for a private function, a Mason's Dinner at the Riveredge Resort Alexandria Bay NY. After the investigation, most of his NCO chain of command were removed except for SFC B. who knew or suspected he was the "whistle blower' and took great steps to retaliate through negative personnel actions. He contends he made everyone aware of this during his separation board proceedings. He contends although he was recommended for discharge the board recommended in his favor to suspend his discharge for 12 months; however, this recommendation was over turned by the Commanding General. The applicant believes this was an unjust move. At this time there was a large drawdown of forces and the Army was hastily shedding Itself of Soldiers under an unwritten zero tolerance policy. He admits that remaining at a party where he was subject to illicit second hand smoke (marijuana) was the wrong thing in retrospect and he should have taken a cab back to base; however, he believes that the entirety of his career points to honorable service and request a sympathetic review. He also contends there was evidence that kidney disease or renal failure could cause false positive test for THC and since there was only one positive test followed by two negative tests he believes this should have been taken under consideration. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 October 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 / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 22 March 2016 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 25 August 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: wrongfully using marijuana between 28 February 2015 and 31 March 2015 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: On 27 August 2015, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than honorable. (5) Administrative Separation Board: On 28 January 2016, the administrative separation board convened and having carefully considered the evidence before it found that the allegation of wrongfully using marijuana between 28 February 2015 and 31 March 2015 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board recommended the applicant be separated from the United States Army with a characterization of service of general (under honorable conditions). While separation was recommended, pursuant to AR 635-200, paragraph 2-12, the board made a non-binding recommendation to the separation authority that the discharge be suspended for a period of 12 months per AR 635-200, paragraph 1-18. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 1 March 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) On 1 March 2016, the separation authority having reviewed the applicant's separation packet the board findings, and the medical evaluation board's recommendation that the applicant be referred to a physical evaluation board; after careful consideration of all matters, directed the applicant be separated from the Army prior to his expiration of term of service with a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service. It was determined that the applicant's medical conditions was not the direct or substantial contributing cause of the conduct that led to the recommendation for administrative elimination. 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 May 2010 / 6 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 94 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 7 years, 7 months, 17 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 6 August 2008 to 5 May 2010 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq (11 September 2009 to 10 July 2010) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM-3, MUC, AGCM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM- CS, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: There is a positive urinalysis report contained in the record coded IR, (Inspection Random), dated 31 March 2015, for THC. CID Report, dated 23 May 2012, which shows the applicant was the subject of investigation relating to being a victim of cruelty and maltreatment. FG, Article 15, dated 26 June 2015, for the wrongful use of marijuana between 28 February 2015 and 31 March 2015. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $773 per month for two months (suspended), and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 June 2015, shows the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciate the difference between right and wrong. The applicant was screened for substance abuse disorders and disclosed that he tested positive for THC on a random company level UA. The applicant denied using marijuana or any illegal substances since enlisting in the Army. At the time he was enrolled in ASAP for treatment. The applicant was seen for a mental status evaluation in preparation for administrative separation proceedings in accordance with Chapter 14-12, AR 635-200. At the time the applicant denied suicidal and homicidal plans, and intent. He did not meet criterial for any psychiatric diagnosis or condition that warrant disposition through medical channels. He was considered fit for duty according to AR 40-501 and was cleared to proceed with administrative separation. Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings, dated 16 September 2015, for right ankle spring s/p ligament reconstruction-fails to meet retention standards IAW AR 40-501 Negative counseling statement reference positive results on urinalysis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; performance counseling statements; law enforcement / CID report which contain a positive urinalysis notification for THC; separation packet; medical documents; and Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) documents. 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. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments (Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade Requests by Veterans Claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dated September 3, 2014), provided guidance to help ensure consistency across the military services in consideration of PTSD relevant to Service Members' discharges. "Liberal consideration will be given in petitions for changes in characterization of service to service treatment record entries which document one of more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or related conditions. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military services. In cases where Service Records or any document from the period of service substantiated the existence of one or more symptoms of what is now recognized as PTSD or PTSD-related condition during the time of service, liberal consideration will be given to finding that PTSD existed at the time of service. Liberal consideration will also be given in cases where civilian providers confer diagnoses of PTSD or PTSD-related conditions, when case records contain narratives that support symptomatology at the time of service, or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that PTSD or a PTSD-related disorder existed at the time of discharge which might have mitigated the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. This guidance in not applicable to cases involving pre- existing conditions which are determined not to have been incurred or aggravated while in military service." "Conditions documented in the record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which PTSD or PTSD related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. Correction boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a characterization of service other than honorable conditions. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD or PTSD-related conditions as a causative factor in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Correction Boards will also exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct." 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 her 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 seeks relief contending the discharge he received was unjust and inequitable. However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. He also contends there was evidenced that kidney disease or renal failure can cause false positive test for THC and since there was only one positive test followed by two negative tests he believes this should have been taken under consideration. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, as noted in the applicant's administrative separation documents the applicant acknowledge he was diagnosed with kidney failure during the period (11 September 2009 to 10 July 2010) and he tested positive for marijuana on 31 March 2015. Furthermore, the service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 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 October 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 AR20160012058 1