1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 22 February 2017 b. Date Received: 31 March 2017 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, that he believes that his discharge was inequitable and unjust because it was based on a failed drug UA and he was never offered any type of treatment or given any counseling. As a result he now suffers from PTSD related to his military discharge that he strongly feels could have been avoided and more importantly he believes he would have been able to continue on honorable completing his military term if proper service (medical, mental, etc.) would have been offered. Another issue that would have prevented the whole discharge itself stems back to a lack of information and communication. It was later brought to his attention from Sergeant First Class C.S., that he could have chosen to remain with the military, something he passionately wanted to do; but he did not learn this until after his discharge orders were received. He also contends that if given the opportunity he would have stayed in the Army and made a career out of it. If given the option he would still reenlist today. He loved his country whole heartedly and requests his discharge be changed not only for his benefits, but for that of his wife and children. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, the SM does not have a mitigating diagnosis for his misconduct. The SM did not have a history of behavior health treatment or diagnosis in-service, nor a service connected rating from the VA. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 11 July 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 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 29 January 2003 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 20 November 2002 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: disrespect to a NCO between 11 June 2002 and 13 June 2002; Absent without leave from 11 June 2002 to 13 June 2002, for which he received a Field Grade Article 15, dated 1 November 2002; and Wrongful use of marijuana between 24 July 2002 and 22 August 2002 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 20 November 2002 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 2 December 2002 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 3 October 2001 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 125 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-2 / 92G10, Food Service Specialist / 1 year, 3 months, 25 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None 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 1 November 2002, for being absent without authority from his unit from 11 June 2002 until 13 June 2002, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer between 11 June 2002 and 13 June 2002, and wrongful use of marijuana between 24 July 2002 and 22 August 2002. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL 2 days (11 June 2002 to 12 June 2002) / surrendered j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: 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 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. 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 record confirms 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a noncommissioned officer, 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 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 seeks relief contending that he believes his discharge was inequitable and unjust because it was based on a failed drug UA and he was never offered any type of treatment or given any counseling. As a result he now suffers from PTSD related to his military discharge that he strongly feels could have been avoided and more importantly he believes he would have been able to continue on honorable completing his military term if proper service (medical, mental, etc.) would have been offered. The applicant's contentions were noted; however, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that his discharge was inequitable or unjust. The applicant claims he now suffers from PTSD as a result of his discharge; 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 at the time of discharge. The applicant contends another issue that would have prevented the whole discharge itself stems back to a lack of information and communication. It was later brought to his attention from Sergeant First Class C.S., that he could have chosen to remain with the military, something he passionately wanted to do; but he did not learn this until after his discharge orders were received. However, as stated previously the applicant, as a noncommissioned officer, 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge. Also, 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. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self- referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. He also contends that if given the opportunity he would have stayed in the Army and made a career out of it. If given the option he would still reenlist today. He loved his country whole heartedly and requests his discharge be changed not only for his benefits, but for that of his wife and children. However, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is not eligible to reenlist. Further, 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 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 11 July 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 a New Separation Order: No b. Change Characterization to: No Change c. Change Reason to: No Change d. Change Authority to: No Change e. Change SPD / RE Code 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 AR20170006599 1