1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 13 October 2017 b. Date Received: 20 October 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, would like an upgrade of discharge for the purpose of having the opportunity to return to college and use Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. The applicant was tested twice in a 30 day period; however, the use of marijuana was a one-time offense. The applicant was not offered counseling or treatment, but instead was chapter out of the Army. Since this incident, the applicant has not used marijuana. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate due to the period of service, the applicant does not have any active duty records for review. The applicant is 70% service- connected for a Mood Disorder from the VA. The VA has also diagnosed the applicant with Depressive Disorder NOS and Adjustment Disorder. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnoses are not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 4 September 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBH) and homelessness. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. 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: Misconduct / AR 635-200 / Chapter 14-12c / JKQ / RE-3 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 17 September 2004 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: NIF (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for testing positive for abuse of a controlled substance. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 August 2004 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 20 August 2004 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 16 January 2003 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 20 / HS Graduate / 103 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-3 / 92A1P, Automated Logistics Specialist / 1 year, 8 months, 2 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: FG Article 15, dated 29 June 2004, for the wrongful use of marijuana between 2 May 2004 and 2 June 2004 and between 14 May 2004 and 14 June 2004. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for two months, and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. Summarized Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ, for being derelict in the performance of duty on 2 February 2003. The punishment consisted of extra duty and restriction for 11 days. DD Form 2624, with a specimen collected dated of 2 June 2004 and related electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 8 June 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 37 during an Command Directed (CO) urinalysis testing conducted on 2 June 2004. DD Form 2624, with a specimen collected date of 14 June 2004 and related electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 18 June 2004, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 69 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 14 June 2004. Negative counseling statements for acts of misconduct and duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: 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 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. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents 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. Furthermore, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, the applicant 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 a honorable discharge. 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. It should be noted, the applicant's service record contains a DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document for Drug Testing) that shows the urinalysis test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty." The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, in his sworn statement dated 14 June 2004, the applicant admitted to smoking marijuana over Memorial Day weekend while at a civilian friend's house in NC, which resulted in his failed urinalysis. The applicant also denied knowing how the drugs found in his room by CID agents got there because he was not in his room the entire weekend until after the drugs were found. The associated rights warning procedure documents note that the applicant requested an attorney on 1 June 2004. Based on the above, it appears likely that the drug test dated 2 June 2004 was a probable cause test related to a CID investigation. In view of the aforementioned, it appears the CO code used on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for "Probable Cause" instead of CO for "Competence for Duty." If this was in fact a harmless error, then the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence in the record did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. The applicant seeks relief contending that he was tested twice in a 30 day period; however, the use of marijuana was a one-time offense. He contends that he not offered counseling or treatment, instead he was chapter out of the Army. Since this incident he has not used marijuana. The applicant's contentions were noted and he is to be commended on his post- service accomplishment. However, although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The applicant's incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. Also, AR 635-200, paragraph 1-16d (2), entitled counseling and rehabilitative requirements, states the rehabilitative requirements may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier. Further, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self- referrals, states the applicant could have self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance. The applicant expressed his desire for an upgrade of his discharge for the purpose of having the opportunity to return to college and use his Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits. 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 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 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 4 September 2019, and by a 3-2 vote, the Board determined that the characterization of service was inequitable based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. post-service diagnosis of OBH) and homelessness. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade to the characterization of service to honorable. 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 AR20170019268 1