1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 May 2017 b. Date Received: 12 June 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, during the time with the 24th Transportation Company, the noncommissioned officer (NCO) in charge told different Soldiers that if they believed they were going to fail a urinalysis that they should inform the NCO and the NCO would make sure they did not fail. The applicant states, there was never a drug problem and that the applicant was prescribed the medications when ill, but when the applicant felt ill again, took the medication. The applicant did not think it would fail the urinalysis. When the applicant was approached about the failed urinalysis, the applicant was shocked. The women that the applicant had spoken to at the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), knew the applicant did not have a problem, that it was a mistake, and that the applicant had been prescribed the medication. The applicant states the reason for the request is to allow for reenlistment. The applicant had a passion for serving and desires to do so again. An honorable discharge would allow the applicant to join again and or allow the applicant to attend school. As a single mother, the applicant desires to serve the country and finish service. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review in the service record, AHLTA, and JLV, the applicant did not have a medical or behavioral health condition that was mitigating for the offenses which led to separation from the Army. The review indicated the SM's positive UAs for wrongfully using medications were not attributed to a current prescription at the time of use. The applicant was evaluated by ASAP and was not diagnosed with a behavioral health or substance use disorder; however, she did continue to participate in ASAP and successfully completed program in January 2013. A Mental Status Evaluation indicated the SM was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 October 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 (Drug Abuse) / AR 635- 200 / Chapter 14-12c (2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 23 January 2013 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 15 November 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: She wrongfully used oxycodone and oxymorphone on two occasions. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 16 November 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 November 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 17 August 2010 / 3 years, 28 weeks b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 87 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92F10, Petroleum Supply Specialist / 2 years, 5 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 30 August 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for OXCOD 4119 (oxycodone), >LOL and OXMOR 292 (oxymorphone), during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing, conducted on 16 August 2012. FG Article 15, dated 1 October 2012, for wrongfully using oxycodone and oxymorphone between 14 and 16 August 2012. The punishment consisted of extra duty for 30 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 15 October 2012, reflects the applicant was cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate by the command. The applicant could understand the difference between right and wrong and could participate in the proceedings. Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624, dated 24 October 2012, reflects the applicant tested positive for OXCOD 3048 (oxycodone) and OXMOR 536 (oxymorphone), during an Inspection Other (IO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 3 October 2012. FG Article 15, dated 14 November 2012, for wrongfully using oxycodone and oxymorphone (between 1 and 3 October 2012). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $633 pay per month for two months (suspended); and, extra duty and restriction for 45 days. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and opioid metabolism article. 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 her general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with her application were carefully reviewed. 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 her service. The record confirms that the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 she should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant contends she did not have a drug problem and she had been prescribed the medications. 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 her overall service record. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table, the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. The applicant contends that an upgrade of her 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. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 26 October 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 AR20170009961 4