1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 November 2016 b. Date Received: 7 November 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 (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 19 months of stellar service with no other adverse action. His performance in the Army was clearly above average and in some areas vastly superior as his service records reflect. The applicant states he had a strong desire to excel in the Army and did so by volunteering, completing training ahead of schedule and qualifying expert on most weapons systems. As a result, he was the Top Gunner in his platoon and was assigned to his platoon sergeant's vehicle. He was always up to date on his personal and professional development and supported new Soldiers with their classes until they completed them. He was physically fit and was training for the Ranger course. Additionally, his service records reflect he was promoted ahead of his peers. The applicant states, the RE code and the narrative of his discharge, is inequitable and out of proportion to a one-time negligent ingestion of a pain medicine. The Army inappropriately used its discretion to characterize his RE Code and narrative reason, where this was a mere error in judgment compared to any criminal intent. He states his act was not an act of recreation drug use. He borrowed pain medicine from a fellow Soldier without asking what it was. An error in judgment borrowing pain medicine compared to the Army providing and RE Code 4 and the Narrative Misconduct (Drug Abuse) exceeded the proportionality, propriety and discretion relative to negligent misconduct. The change of his RE code would allow him to reenter the U.S. Army Reserves, which would be equitable and properly characterize his onetime error in judgment. He states, he was not provided sufficient time to consider or understand the ramifications which resulted in an improper and inequitable bar to re-enlistment. During a ruck march, he stepped in a hole and twisted his ankle. That night his ankle and foot swelled up and turned purple and he had a great deal of pain. He ran out of Advil and broke down and took another Soldiers pain medicine. The next morning he went to PT instead of going on sick call, which his unit frowned upon. That same day he was selected for a urinalysis and failed. He states, his family has a strong military heritage, which has contributed to his shame. This strong family heritage was an extenuating circumstance, which affected his judgment at that time. Since then, he has matured and consults with both his father and his brother who are actively serving in the Army. He should have sought counsel to better understand how his second error in judgment to leave the Army, was erroneous based on his shame. This error in his youth cost him a great deal of honor, pride and respect. He states he was asked by senior officers in his battalion to stay in the Army and work through his shame, but the applicant elected to be discharged. The applicant states, his brother was killed while serving in Kuwait and now more than ever he desires to serve again and have something good come from his loss. He has tried to reenlist, but the waiver was not approved because of his RE code and the narrative reason. He realizes this is a great deal to ask of the Board, however he would like to serve the country and earn the respect of the Board and others. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 7 February 2018, 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 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 8 October 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 17 September 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: Between on or about 7 July 2014 and on or about 14 July 2014, he wrongfully used Oxymorphone, a schedule II controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 17 September 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 24 September 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 March 2013 / 3 years, 9 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 18 / HS Graduate / 102 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 1 year, 7 months, 3 days / The applicant's DD Form 214 does not properly reflect his Total Prior Inactive Service. d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 16 December 2010 - 17 July 2011 / NIF RA, 18 July 2011 - 15 December 2011 / UNC e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTS, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 25 July 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for OXYMOR 158 (oxymorphone), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 14 July 2014. FG Article 15, dated 9 September 2014, for wrongfully using oxymorphone (between 7 and 14 July 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 pay; and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214; DD Form 293; Enlisted Record Brief; letters of recommendation; case separation packet; self-authored statement; and, copies of his certificates. 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, 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, a narrative reason change and a reentry (RE) code change. 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 below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 the incident that caused his discharge was the only one in his entire Army career. 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 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 he had good service. 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 his discharge should be upgraded because he was not provided sufficient time to consider or understand the ramifications which resulted in an improper and inequitable bar to re-enlistment. 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. Further, 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 7 February 2018, 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 AR20160018664 3