1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 30 March 2018 b. Date Received: 4 April 2018 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 pertinent part and in effect, the discharge was inequitable, because the applicant does not recollect consuming any illegal substance, the night prior to the urinalysis. During an investigation, the applicant and another Soldier admitted to consuming alcohol but neither recalled consuming any type of illegal substance. (The applicant detailed the events surrounding the failed urinalysis test.) The applicant asserts that another punishment would have been suitable for the case, but not taking away the right to serve the country. The applicant has never failed a urinalysis, except for the one leading to discharge. The applicant has always strived to excel and be the best Soldier in the Army. The applicant enlisted for many reasons, such as the GI Bill. An upgrade would allow the applicant to reclaim the GI Bill and the opportunity to reenlist in the future as an officer. 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 diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder. The applicant does not have any VA records available for review. In summary, the applicant does not have a BH diagnosis that is mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 13 November 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: 7 October 2015 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 8 September 2015 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: On 6 December 2014, the applicant was arrested for underage drinking. Between 25 June 2015 and 25 July 2015, the applicant tested positive for D-Amphetamine. (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: Waived, 8 September 2015 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 September 2015 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 1 April 2013 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 / HS Graduate / 114 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 13P10, Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Operations/Fire Direction Specialist / 2 years, 6 months, 7 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None / NA e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: Korea / None f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; KDSM; ASR; OSR g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, dated 9 January 2015, indicates the applicant was reprimanded for drinking and driving on 6 December 2014. FG Article 15, dated 20 February 2015, for drinking under the age of 21 on 6 December 2014. The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2 and 22 days of extra duty. An Electronic Copy of DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document - Drug Testing), dated 3 August 2015, indicates the specimen collected on 25 July 2017, on an "IU" (Inspection, Unit) basis, provided by the applicant, tested positive for "DAMP." Counseling statements for testing positive for methamphetamine; being referred to ASAP; and underage drinking. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 24 August 2015, provided no behavioral health diagnosis. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None / NA j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge), dated 30 March 2018; two character reference/supporting statements; two On-Site Custody and Control Forms with cover statement; two AAM Certificates; ASAP certificate; Record Fire Scorecard; ERB; and two counseling statements, dated 7 March 2014, and 30 July 2014. 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The applicant's documentary evidence indicate that the applicant is currently employed with a large oil and gas contracted company. 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. 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 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, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies. By the serious incidents of misconduct, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and marred the quality of his service that ultimately caused his discharge from the Army. 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 the discharge was inequitable, because he does not recollect consuming any illegal substance, the night prior to the urinalysis that led to his discharge. 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 was 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 prior to the incidents of misconduct, and his post-service accomplishments, the Board can find that his complete period of service and accomplishments were or were not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his characterization of service. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veterans' 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 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 third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's character and 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 battalion and brigade level chain of command. 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 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 13 November 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 AR20180008341 1