1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 2 December 2016 b. Date Received: 6 December 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, an upgrade would allow him to pursue career advancement opportunities and achieve his goals. The incidents of minor misconduct during the last six months of his service leading to his discharge were likely due to high anxiety and stress following the 9/11 events. He was always willing to perform his duties as a Soldier and medical specialist. Since his discharge, he obtained an education, training, and certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, and works closely with providers of VA Services. 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 / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12b / JKA / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 15 May 2002 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 April 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: between 18 Jan 2002 and 18 Feb 02, he wrongfully used amphetamine/d- methamphetamine/MDMA, a controlled substance; on 19 Feb 2002, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 1600 hours, accountability formation; on 30 Jan 2002, you failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: mandatory platoon formation; on 17 Jan 2002, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: mandatory platoon formation; on 11 Jan 2002, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: mandatory platoon formation; between 6 Aug 2001 and 9 Aug 2001, he wrongfully used d-methamphetamine, a controlled substance; on 8 Aug 2001, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0530 hours in the motorpool; on or about 22 May 2001, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0615 hours accountability formation; on 18 May 2001, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0615 hours accountability formation; between 2 Jan 2001 and 5 Jan 2001, he wrongfully used d-methamphetamine, a controlled substance; and on 17 Oct 2000, he failed to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, to wit: 0620 accountability formation. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 23 April 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 29 April 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 November 1999 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 91W10, Medical Specialist / 2 years, 5 months, 29 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None / None f. Awards and Decorations: ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing, dated 31 January 2001, shows the applicant tested positive for DMet during an IU (Inspection, Unit) urinalysis conducted on 5 January 2001. Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing, dated 22 August 2001, shows the applicant tested positive for DMet during an IU (Inspection, Unit) urinalysis conducted on 9 August 2001. Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing, dated 14 March 2002, shows the applicant tested positive for Amp/DMet/MDMA, during an IU (Inspection, Unit) urinalysis conducted on 19 February 2002. Negative counseling statements for having a positive test results due to a unit drug urinalysis on several occasions; failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions; failing to inform his chain of command on his whereabouts; sleeping while on duty; falling to make the mandatory platoon formation and first formation on several occasions; failing to obey a lawful order on numerous occasions; failing to be in the proper uniform; inability to adapt to Army lifestyle; FG Article 15, dated 19 March 2002, for wrongfully using methamphetamine, a controlled substance, between 1 January 2001 and 7 January 2002. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay per month for two months, and 45 days of extra duty and restriction. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 19 March 2002, psychiatrically cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command. 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 2 December 2016; character reference/supporting letter; certified fitter-orthotics certificate; GD certificate; DD Form 214; and name change Order. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant states, in effect, since his discharge, he obtained an education, training, and certification in Orthotics and Prosthetics, and works closely with providers of VA Services. 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 14-12b addresses a pattern of misconduct consisting of either discreditable involvement with civilian or military authorities or discreditable conduct and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline including conduct violating the accepted standards of personal conduct found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulations, the civilian law and time-honored customs and traditions of the Army. 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 "JKA" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, pattern of misconduct. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKA" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 the pattern of misconduct, 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 sufficient evidence that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. In consideration of the applicant's post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his accomplishment were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant's contentions regarding his behavioral health issues, indicating his misconduct were likely due to high anxiety and stress resulting from the 9/11 events, were carefully considered. However, the service record contains no evidence of any behavioral health diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it would be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the medical records showing a diagnosis of a medical condition relating to his behavioral health), for the Board's consideration because they are not available in the official record. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to pursue career advancement opportunities and achieve his goals. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance and character, recognizing his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the person providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. 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 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 AR20160019613 2