1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 26 December 2016 b. Date Received: 27 September 2017 c. Counsel: 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and a reentry (RE) code change. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, at just 19 years of age, joined the Army based on a desire to serve the country and receive skills that would both afford the opportunity to contribute to the Army's mission and to receive benefits that would then allow a higher education, also for the benefit of the Army. After successfully completing initial training, the applicant reported to Fort Carson, where it did not take long for the applicant's fellow Soldiers to recognize the applicant's leadership abilities. The applicant continued to excel by completing training, mentoring and leading other Soldiers and earning awards and promotions. Other than the allegations underlying the discharge and related punishment, the applicant's service was unblemished. Counsel states that in April 2014, the applicant learned from fellow Soldiers and friends, that Specialist J.R. was not only contemplating suicide, but that he had more than one plan as to how to do it. In response to learning this, the applicant decided to stay with SPC J.R., as a friend, a fellow Soldier, and as a medic particularly trained in suicide prevention, to ensure SPC J. R's safety. With no prior knowledge that SPC J.R. was in possession of synthetic marijuana, the applicant remained in the car with that other Soldier trying to talk him down from suicidal ideations. During this time, SPC J.R. proceeded to take out the synthetic marijuana and begin to smoke it. At no time did the applicant actively smoke the synthetic marijuana and the only reason for staying in the vehicle with SPC J.R. was to continue to ensure his safety. Due to it being late in the evening and the amount of time that had elapsed, both fell asleep in SPC J.R.'s vehicle. Sometime later, the Fountain police found both Soldiers in the car asleep, advised them that they were not supposed to be in the park after a certain time and then discovered SPC J.R's. synthetic marijuana and the pipe. Counsel states, law enforcement documents are devoid of any reference of the applicant being in possession of any illicit drug paraphernalia and no such allegations were ever brought by the command. Similarly, the basis of the applicant's chapter action was wrongfully using Spice between on or about 7 February 2014 and on or about 7 March 2014. Moreover, statements completed by Soldiers who escorted the applicant on the night in question are devoid of any admission by the applicant about smoking illicit drugs. The applicant' test results were not subject to challenge at a court-martial, indicated that there levels of 469.36 and 228.82, presumably for Synthetic Cannabinoids. There exists no scientific evidence that those levels could not have been produced by being enclosed in a vehicle for a period of time with someone else who was smoking the substance. Based on the test results, the applicant's command proceeded with an Article 15 against the applicant for wrongfully smoking spice. Moments before going into the second Article 15 reading, an NCO in the applicant's command advised that, even if the applicant did not smoke the synthetic cannabinoid, the applicant should just accept the Article 15. It was suggested to the applicant that upon agreeing to take the Article 15, the command would not seek a chapter. Based on what the NCO had told applicant, who wanted to very much continue a career and not be subject to a chapter action, plead guilty to the Article 15 charge, and, as result of being found guilty, the applicant's command imposed punishment. Counsel States, the applicant's act of assisting SPC J.R. is entirely consistent with the nature of service during the time in the Army. This sentiment is shared by other medics with who emphasized the applicant's selfless and honorable service and indicated that if placed in the same position, would have done the same thing by staying with the a battle buddy through an active suicidal ideation. The applicant is currently employed by a medical services provider and has duties that include supervising over twenty employees who provide care to individuals in the community. The applicant has been employed as such for a majority of the time since discharge from the Army. The applicant's intelligence and professional aspirations, in conjunction with proven leadership abilities and the honorable service rendered to the Army merits an upgrade. The current discharge does not do justice to the applicant's service and it does not do justice to the great potential the applicant has to continue serving those in the community as a competent medical provider. Without an upgrade the applicant's chances at pursuing an education will be stunted, to the applicant's detriment and to the detriment of all of those the applicant could otherwise be helping. Counsel further details contentions in an allied legal brief. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 24 April 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 (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 11 September 2014 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 5 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: He wrongfully used "Spice" between on or about 7 February 2014 and on or about 7 March 2014. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 12 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 26 August 2014 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 23 January 2012 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 21 / HS Graduate / 118 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 68W10, Health Care Specialist / 2 years, 7 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Kuwait (13 July 2013 - 4 November 2013) f. Awards and Decorations: AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive LCO Review, dated 30 May 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for SYNCAN (synthetic cannabis), during a Competence for Duty (CO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 7 March 2014. Confirmed Urinalysis Test Results, date 18 June 2014, reflects the applicant tested positive for Synthetic Cannabis, during a Probable Cause (PO) urinalysis testing, conducted on 7 March 2014. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 11 July 2014, 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. FG Article 15, dated18 July 2014, for wrongfully smoking spice (between 7 February and 7 March 2014). The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $765 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: Online application and allied legal brief, DD Form 214, case separation packet, self-authored statement, copies of his military awards and training certificates, two self-authored statements. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant is employed by a medical services provider and has duties that include supervising over twenty employees who provide care to individuals in the community. 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 states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. 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 "JKQ" as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, misconduct (serious offense). The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of "JKQ" will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant, through counsel, requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable, a narrative reason change and a reentry (RE) code change. 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 he only admitted to using spice during his Article 15 proceedings, because he was told that if he accepted the punishment the command would pursue separating him from the service. 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 applicant contends the narrative reason for the discharge should be changed. However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and the separation code is "JKQ"." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant requests an RE code change. 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 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. The applicant contends that he had good service which included an overseas tour. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant is to be commended for his accomplishments. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicant's performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member's overall character. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. 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 24 April 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 AR20170016619 1