1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 January 2017 b. Date Received: 23 January 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, the discharge from the Army was deemed "UNJUST" in a letter when the applicant applied for an upgrade of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge to a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. In the previous application, the applicant wrote about being young and stupid at the time of the bad decision and regrets it still today. The applicant was made an example of with two other Soldiers that were in the same situation. The applicant failed a drug screen and had to take another one 30 days later wherein the levels dramatically dropped showing that the applicant did not continue using the substance. Due to it still being in the applicant's system and coming up positive on the drug test, it was still considered a failed test. The two other Soldiers levels continued to increase, proving that they continued to use, but their discharges were the same. At that time, the applicant was set for a medical board for developing hip issues in the Army and continues to have some issues almost 15 years later. Since that point in life, the applicant has changed dramatically and now has a wife and three children and is pursuing a career in the oil and gas industry. The applicant desires the upgrade in order to receive the GI Bill and pursue some additional education. The applicant is ashamed of being discharged from the military with anything other than an honorable discharge. The applicant still would like to have the opportunity to work for the government in a civilian manner. The applicant tried to re-enlist about eight years ago, but no branch would accept the applicant because of the discharge code. The applicant requests that the Board consider the request for an upgrade because the applicant has always and will always, uphold the standard of a veteran and embrace that title until the applicant's last breath. The evidence of record reflects the applicant had a prior records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 April 2011. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason/Authority/Codes/Characterization: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial / AR 635- 200, Chapter 10 / KFS / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 7 May 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 25 March 2004, the applicant was charged with violating Article 112a, UCMJ, for being wrongfully using marijuana, between 13 February and 14 March 2004. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 31 March 2004 (3) Basis for Separation: Pursuant to the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. (4) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (5) Separation Decision Date/Characterization: 16 April 2004 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions / On 13 April 2013, the Army Discharge Review Board granted the applicant relief in the form of an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions). 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 24 May 2001 / 5 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 108 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 98H10, Morse Interceptor / 2 years, 11 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Charge sheet as described in previous paragraph 3c. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 22 March 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 84 (marijuana), during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing, conducted on 14 March 2004. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 214 and DD Form 293. 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 10 provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. 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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The applicant, in consultation with legal counsel voluntarily requested, in writing, a discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense, and he indicated he understood he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veterans' benefits. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The under other than honorable conditions discharge received by the applicant was normal and appropriate under the regulatory guidance in 2004. The Army Discharge Review Board granted relief to the applicant in 2013, in the form of an upgrade to General (Under Honorable Conditions). The applicant contends that he was made an example of by his unit. 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 that he was young and immature 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 other Soldiers with similar or worse offenses received the same characterization of service as him. 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 contends that he was in the process of receiving a medical board for hip issues at the time of his separation proceedings. 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 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 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. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 25 March 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the applicant's length of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. The Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: Honorable c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code to: No Change Authenticating Official: SECRETARIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY (SRA): While the Board recommend partial relief by upgrading the characterization of service to Honorable; as the Secretarial Reviewing Authority, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review boards) reviewed the findings, conclusions, and the board's recommendation under the authority of Title 10 United States Code Section 1553(b) and Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 (Discharge Review Board (DRB) Procedures and Standards), enclosure E3.7.1.1.1. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) found sufficient evidence to grant additional relief and directs that your DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected by issuing you a new DD Form 214 that changes the characterization of service to Honorable; the separation authority to AR 635-200, Chapter 5; the narrative reason to Secretarial Authority; and the SPD code to JFF. 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 AR20170001219 4