1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 8 November 2018 b. Date Received: 13 November 2018 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of general (under honorable conditions) discharge to honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to completion of required service. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, that the discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident within two and a half years of service. The applicant believes there may have been knowledge of a failed urine analysis by the chain of command, but allowed reenlistment, then decided to discharge the applicant due to politics. The applicant enlisted to serve and show loyalty to the country. The choices the applicant was making prior to service were that of a boy, the Army turned the applicant into a man. The applicant has deep remorse for disrespecting the service by smoking marijuana. The applicant failed the urinalysis that followed holiday block leave, but was not notified for months. Soldiers within the unit failed the same urine analysis but were discharged months before the applicant. If the applicant made poor choices with them, failed with them, why was the applicant not discharged with them? The applicant was allowed to reenlist not knowing that the applicant failed; the applicant had a ceremony where family and friends supported continued loyalty to the Armed Forces. The applicant received an order and after all of that, the applicant was told about failing and was removed. The applicant is unable to support the family since discharge due to the issued stated. The applicant needs to help the family, it is not fair to the family that they too must be penalized for negligence. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 8 April 2020, 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: 30 May 2017 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 3 May 2017 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason: for wrongfully using marijuana between 3 December 2016 and 3 January 2017 (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 4 May 2017 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 15 May 2017 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 28 February 2017 / 3 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 26 / HS Graduate / 98 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 88M10, Motor Transport Operator / 2 years, 6 months, 19 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 12 November 2014 to 27 February 2017 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: None f. Awards and Decorations: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 16 March 2017, reflects the applicant tested positive for THC 177 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 3 January 2017. FG Article 15, dated 30 March 2017, for wrongfully using marijuana between 3 December 2016 and 3 January 2017. The punishment consisted of reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $399.00 pay per month two months, and extra duty for 45 days. Counseling statements make reference to the applicant testing positive on a urinalysis test. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: NIF 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293; reassignment orders 136-1004, dated 16 May 2017; reenlistment documents; counseling statement; and DD Form's 214 for the period of service under review 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. 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, 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 and a change of his narrative reason for separation to completion of required service. The applicant's available 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 an 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. The evidence of record shows the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), 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 (Drug Abuse)," and the separation code is "JKK." 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 appropriate RE code is 4. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The applicant seeks relief contending that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident within his two and a half years of service. The applicant contends that he believes there may have been knowledge of his failed urine analysis by his chain of command, but allowed his reenlistment, then decided to discharge him due to politics. He enlisted to serve and show loyalty to his country. The choices he was making prior to his service were that of a boy, the Army turned him into a man. He has deep remorse for disrespecting the service by smoking marijuana. He failed the urinalysis that followed holiday block leave, but was not notified for months. Soldiers within his unit failed the same urine analysis but were discharged months before him. If he made poor choices with them, failed with them, why was he not discharged with them? He was allowed to reenlist not knowing that he failed; he had a ceremony where family and friends supported him continuing loyalty to the Armed Forces. He received an order and after all of that he was told he failed and was removed. He contends he is unable to support his family since his discharge due to the issued stated. He needs to help his family, it is not fair to his family that they too must be penalized for his negligence. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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. The evidence of record shows in an electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 16 March 2017, that the applicant tested positive for THC 177 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 3 January 2017. On 30 March 2017, UCMJ action was initiated, and on 3 May 2017 separation action was initiated. 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. Further, the record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Also, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities 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 8 April 2020, 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 AR20180016403 1