1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 June 2017 b. Date Received: 11 July 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, was chaptered a few months before the expiration term of service (ETS). The applicant had never been in trouble with the law before the Army. The applicant was never in any trouble in the Army beside the incident of misconduct. The applicant was a great Soldier for three and a half years that made one mistake. The applicant was the only one in the unit to be discharged for a positive drug test, because the platoon sergeant did not like the applicant. The applicant is a disabled veteran and would love to finish the degree the applicant started prior to the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 20 March 2019, 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: 28 July 2016 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 23 June 2016 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he wrongfully used marijuana between (16 January 2016 and 15 February 2016). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 June 2016 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 13 July 2016 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 6 November 2012, 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 22 years / HS Graduate / 99 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 92A10, Automated Logistical Specialist / 3 years, 8 months, 23 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: A negative counseling statement dated, 8 February 2016, for implementation of a bar to reenlistment. Summarized Article 15, dated 9 March 2016, for unlawfully holding SPC G.A.P., on the ground (24 January 2016); extra duty for 5 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 28 April 2016, relates that the applicant's screen for depression and anxiety was within normal limits. His PTSD and TBI screens were negative. He was cleared from behavioral health standpoint for any administrative action by command. He met retention standards prescribed in AR 40-501, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warrants disposition through medical channels. He was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by Command. FG Article 15, dated 10 May 2016, for wrongful use of marijuana between (16 January 2016 and 15 February 2016); reduction to PV2 / E-2, extra duty and restriction for 45 days and an oral reprimand. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: Online application (six pages). 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. 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 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable. The applicant's record of service and the issues 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. The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge at the time of separation. 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, he was chaptered a few months before his expiration term of service (ETS); and he was the only one in his unit to be discharged for a positive drug test, because his platoon sergeant did not like him. 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 applicant further contends, he had never been in trouble with the law before the Army. This contention is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. The applicant also contends, he was never in any trouble in the Army beside his incident of misconduct. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization of service. The applicant additionally contends, he was a great Soldier for three and a half years that made one mistake. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incident that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. Lastly, the applicant contends, he is a disabled veteran and would love to finish his degree he started prior to the Army. The applicant bears the burden of presenting substantial and credible evidence to support this contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he is a disabled veteran. 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 20 March 2019, 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 AR20170012186 4