1. Applicant’s Name: a. Application Date: 28 June 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 pertinent part and in effect, he decided to serve his country as full-time active duty after his responsibilities to his family became overwhelming. Not long after being stationed in Fort Hood, the applicant contends that he began to face racial discrimination, which started to impair his ability to serve. Both his youth and his immaturity only escalated the tension. And due to the peer pressure, depression, and the financial strain, the applicant states that he indulged in marijuana and subsequently failed two drug tests. Other than that, his military career was exemplary. The applicant contends that his command abused its authority when they chose to discharge him without proper guidance, not affording him the opportunity for counseling, nor giving him a fair chance to prove who he was as a man, a Soldier, and why he chose to serve his country. The applicant states he tried to apply for a hardship discharge, but was told that it did not exist. An upgrade would allow him to use his educational benefits, pursue a career in business, and become a productive member of society. He cannot afford the cost of college on his own. He is concerned about his future, including his son’s future. In a records review hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 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: 22 April 2008 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 6 November 2007 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant received two FG Article 15s on 30 May 2007 and 26 September 2007 for testing positive for marijuana on two separate occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 6 November 2007 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Conditionally waived, 6 November 2007, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general (under honorable conditions). (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 4 April 2008 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 26 February 2007 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 91 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 6 months, 9 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG, 22 June 2005 to 23 August 2005 / NA IADT, 24 August 2005 to 3 March 2006 / HD ARNG, 4 March 2006 to 25 February 2007 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 31 May 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 28 February 2007 and 29 March 2007). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $650 (suspended), 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction (suspended). Negative counseling statements for having a positive urinalysis for THC; being AWOL and being recommended for a summary court-martial. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, undated, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing conducted on 2 August 2007. FG Article 15, dated 26 September 2007, for wrongfully using marijuana (between 2 July 2007 and 2 August 2007). (The punishment imposed NIF) Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 17 September 2007, provided no diagnosis or any psychiatric disorder which would explain the behavior for which the applicant was being separated for. Charge Sheet indicates a charge of violating the UCMJ, Article 86, for being AWOL from 11 December 2007 to 24 January 2008, was preferred on 13 February 2008. Quantum, offer to plead guilty, dated 14 February 2008, indicates the applicant offered to plead guilty providing the court-martial convening authority approve a confinement credit of 18 days towards an adjudged confinement, and to refer his case to a summary court-martial. Report of Result of Trial, dated 14 February 2008, reflects the applicant was found guilty of being AWOL by a summary court-martial and the sentence consisted of forfeiture of $867 pay for one month and 25 days of confinement. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: 113 days 44 days (AWOL, 11 December 2007 to 23 January 2008) / Unknown 69 days (Military/Civilian Confinement, 14 February 2008 to 22 April 2008) / Released j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; self-authored statement; and applicant’s parents’ supporting statements. 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. 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, paragraph 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 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.” 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant’s available record of service, and 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. By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service. 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 began to face racial discrimination, peer pressure, and financial strain shortly after arriving to Fort Hood, which started to impair his ability to serve. 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 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. Accordingly, this argument is not sufficient to support his request for an upgrade of his discharge. The applicant contends that his youth and immaturity only escalated the tension 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 that, due to depression and stress, he indulged in marijuana which led to his discharge from the Army. However, 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 applicant contends that, other than the failed drug tests, his military career was exemplary. 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 contends that his command abused its authority when they chose to discharge him without proper guidance, not affording him the opportunity for counseling, nor giving him a fair chance to prove who he was as a man, a Soldier, and why he chose to serve his country. However, 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. Furthermore, 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. After reviewing the applicant’s discharge packet, the separation authority properly waived the rehabilitative requirements. Moreover, the evidence of record shows the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The applicant contends he tried to apply for a hardship discharge, but was told that it did not exist. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. 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 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 hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 9 January 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: 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: NA AUTHENTICATING OFFICIAL: COL, US ARMY Presiding Officer Army Discharge Review Board 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 AR20160012659 5