1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2016 b. Date Received: 15 August 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, a narrative reason change and a reentry code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 28 months of service with no other adverse action. He was one of the most professional Food Service Technicians and was promoted to sergeant in three years. He was judged poorly and unfairly before and while going through the chapter proceedings. He was pressured by his chain of command into taking an Article 15, while being told that he would be retained. After he accepted the Article 15, he was still chaptered out, even though he had proof and sworn statements. Other Soldiers were retained for the same reason that he was being separated for. He states, it was not fair across the board. He was a motivated and disciplined Soldier and always did what was asked of him. He states he did not illegally use drugs or abuse drugs and acknowledges that the drug testing procedures are fairly accurate, but he offers possible reasons for the positive urinalysis results. The possible reasons he describes are laboratory error, sample contamination, documentation irregularities and an inadequate investigation. He still wonders, what he did to his chain of command, to deserve for his career to come to an end. He states he believes he was targeted and that his unit was full of toxic leaders which had called him a few racial words. His discharge has hindered his life and he does not want it to affect any future careers that he may try to obtain. He provides documents for the Board's consideration that will reflect he is not the negative person that he is judged by on his DD Form 214. He is a student at American Intercontinental University and will soon graduate with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration. His discharge has prevented him from receiving all of his benefits. He hopes this will show that he has been very productive in the two years since his discharge. He is married to a Soldier and he is a stay at home dad with two toddlers. Being a Soldier was his life on and off duty and there is nothing more that he desires than to go back and serve his country or to obtain a federal career helping fellow brothers and sisters who still serve. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 October 2017, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined the narrative reason for the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, and a prior period of honorable service mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. The board determined the characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 31 July 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 April 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully used codeine between on or about 2 and 31 January 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 24 April 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 16 May 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 April 2013 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / HS Graduate / 89 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 3 years, 9 months, 18 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 13 October 2010 - 2 April 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (22 January 2013 - 1 October 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: ACM-CS, ARCOM, AAM-3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 11 February 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for COD 2060 (codeine), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 31 January 2014. CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 21 March 2014, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of Codeine when he provided a urine specimen on 31 January 2014, which tested positive for Codeine. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 27 April 2014, reflects the applicant was cleared for administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. FG Article 15, dated 6 May 2014, for wrongfully using codeine (between 2 and 31 January 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended); forfeiture of $1017 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra duty for 30 days; and, an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149; and, DD Form 293, with all allied documents listed in block 8 of the application. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Pursuing his Bachelor's Degree. 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, 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. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. 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 marred the quality of his service. 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 have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c (2), AR 635- 200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant contends that he does know what he did to his chain of command for them to end his career and believes he was targeted. 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. The applicant contends the urinalysis testing process was flawed and vulnerable to many errors. He provides statements to support his contentions. However, the applicant's positive urinalysis test was a result of the command's random urine testing program to maintain good order and discipline within the unit. Such random testing has been upheld by civilian and military courts as lawful and does not violate the US Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, nor does it violate Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition, military orders to produce a urine sample have been upheld in court as both legal and lawful and essential to military discipline. Further, the evidence provided by the applicant was previously considered by separation authority prior to his decision to separate the applicant for drug abuse. The applicant contends that he was subjected to toxic leadership and had been called racial words. 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 he had good service which included a combat tour. 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 the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant contends that other Soldiers with similar offenses were not discharged. However, the method in which another Soldier's case was handled is not relevant to the applicant's case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow him full benefits. 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 applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character 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 3-2 vote, the Board determined the narrative reason for the discharge is inequitable. The Board found the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include combat service, and a prior period of honorable service mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. The board determined the characterization of service was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 10. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12a e. Change SPD/RE Code to: Change SPD to JKN / Change RE to 3 f. 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 AR20160015161 1