1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 28 March 2017 b. Date Received: 6 April 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, there was an incident where other people were involved, but they all fled and the applicant was the only one they put the blame on. The applicant was accused of something which the applicant had nothing to do with, but the papers for discharge were initiated. The applicant never knew if the others were caught or if anyone else received the same punishment. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 December 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization was improper. The inclusion of the specific evidence administered as part of the applicant's rehabilitation program is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, 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 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 5 October 2006 c. Separation Facts: (1) DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet): On 23 June 2006, the applicant was charged with: Violating Article 112a, UCMJ, for wrongfully using cocaine between 5 and 8 March 2006; and, Violating Article 112a, UCMJ, the applicant, on or about 22 March 2006, with intent to deceive, make to Investigator O, official statements, to wit: "I heard drugs were in the barracks but I had nothing to do with it." When asked, "Have you ever seen drugs in the barracks?" The applicant replied, "No sir'', and when asked "Do you know who had drugs in the barracks?" The applicant replied, "No sir", which statements were totally false and were then known by the applicant to be so false. (2) Legal Consultation Date: 27 September 20006 (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: 29 September 2006 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 25 August 2005 / IADT b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 35 / HS Graduate / NIF c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-1 / None / 1 year, 1 month, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: USAR, 13 August 2005 - 24 August 2005 / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: None g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: CID Report of Investigation - Initial Final, dated 27 March 2006, reflects an investigation established probable cause to believe the applicant committed the offense of Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance when cocaine was detected in his urine. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 6 April 2006, reflects the applicant tested positive for COC 242 (cocaine), during an Rehabilitation Testing (RO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 21 March 2006. 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 under other than honorable conditions discharge to general (under honorable conditions). The applicant's record of service, 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. 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 that he was blamed for something that he had nothing to do with and then discharged. 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 discharge was not consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was not within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was not provided full administrative due process. 9. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 19 December 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined the characterization was improper. The inclusion of the specific evidence administered as part of the applicant's rehabilitation program is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85 and is protected evidence. Use of this information mandates award of an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to honorable. However, the Board determined the narrative reason, SPD code and RE code were proper and equitable and voted not to change them. 10. 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: 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 AR20170006712 1