1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 15 June 2015 b. Date Received: 11 September 2015 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 pertinent part and in effect, he had a spotless record during his eight years of his service. He is a combat veteran who was injured in combat. He had multiple surgeries. He tested positive for morphine a week after his discharge from the hospital. He only took his prescribed medications and did nothing wrong. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 June 2017, 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 9 May 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: NIF, but according to an administrative separation board report of proceedings, the board found: That between 19 March 2013 and 26 March 2013, the applicant did wrongfully used morphine, a schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ. That on 11 April 2013, the applicant did operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of Article 111, UCMJ. (3) Recommended Characterization: NIF (4) Legal Consultation Date: NIF (5) Administrative Separation Board: 27 March 2014, the board recommended separation with service characterized as General (Under Honorable Conditions) (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 14 June 2012 / Pursuant to MOB Orders 097-265, dated 31 May 2012, for 400 days, in support of OEF b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 24 / HS Graduate / 124 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-5 / 12B20, Combat Engineer / 8 years, 5 months, 22 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: ARNG (18 November 2005 to 16 January 2006) / NA IADT (17 January 2006 to 26 May 2006) / UNC ARNG (27 May 2006 to 25 June 2006) / NA MOB (26 June 2006 to 30 September 2007) / HD ARNG (1 October 2007 to 13 June 2012) / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (19 August 2012 to 31 October 2012) f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM; ACM-2 CS; AFEM-M DEV; ASR; MUC g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 22 April 2013, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for refusing to take a lawfully requested test to measure the alcohol content of his breath by civil authorities, while reasonably believed to be driving under the influence. FG Article 15, dated 5 August 2013, for wrongfully using morphine, a controlled substance between 19 March 2013 and 26 March 2013. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,152 pay per month for one month (suspended), and 30 days of extra duty. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), dated 15 June 2015; medical records, dated 1-3 March 2013; and list of prescriptions with fill date from 27 October 2012 to 26 June 2013. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's record shows he continued his service with the Army National Guard and was discharged on 17 January 2015, with an honorable discharge. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): 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, paragraph 14-12c(2), 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. The applicant's available record of service, and the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant's record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was digitally authenticated by the applicant's digital signature, and an administrative separation board report of proceedings. The report of proceedings indicate the applicant with his military counsel were present during the board proceedings. The report further indicates the separation authority approved the board's findings and recommendation. The findings of the board 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, 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. The applicant contends the discharge was unjust. 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 his issues. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that he may have been unjustly discharged. The applicant's statements alone do not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further sufficient evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. In consideration of the applicant's service accomplishments and quality of his service, based on the available record, the Board can find that his complete period of service was or was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. Based on the available 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 26 June 2017, 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 AR20170009250 3