1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 3 December 2018 b. Date Received: 10 December 2018 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, feels the service merits an honorable discharge. The applicant does not believe that a failed urinalysis should prevent the discharge from being upgraded. The applicant failed a drug test due to taking an anti-anxiety drug and now takes for anxiety the applicant developed in the service. The applicant wants to hold one's head up high for serving the country. 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, Drug Seeking Behavior, and Opioid Dependence. The applicant is 50% service-connected; 30% for Anxiety Disorder from the VA. In summary, the applicant's BH diagnosis is not mitigating for the misconduct which led to separation from the Army. In a records review conducted at Arlington, VA on 17 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, Paragraph 14-12c(2) / JKK / RE-4 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) b. Date of Discharge: 10 December 2014 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 22 August 2014 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reason for his discharge; he wrongfully used Schedule III drugs (Nordiazapam, Oxazepam, Temazepam), between (7 May 2014 and 28 May 2014). (3) Recommended Characterization: The unit commander did not recommends a characterization of service, only that he be separated from the US Army. The intermediate commander recommended a General (Under Honorable Conditions). (4) Legal Consultation Date: 27 August 2014 (5) Administrative Separation Board: The applicant waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service not less favorable than a general discharge and that he be re-deployed immediately upon acceptance of his separation packet by the rear detachment. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: NIF / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 20 August 2013 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 34 years / GED Certificate / 101 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 12N10, Horizontal Construction / 8 years, 6 months, 11 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: RA, 30 May 2006 to 10 August 2008 / HD RA, 11 August 2008 to 19 August 2013 / HD e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan, 13 February 2014 to 1 August 2014 f. Awards and Decorations: AAM-4, AGCM-2, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, NATO MDL g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Positive urinalysis test coded IU (Inspection Unit), dated 28 May 2014, for NORD, OXAZ and TEMA. CID Report of Investigation, dated 12 August 2014, revealed the applicant was under investigation, for wrongful use of valium. FG Article 15 dated, 15 August 2014, for wrongful use of Schedule III drugs (Nordiazapam, Oxazepam, Temazepam), between (7 May 2014 and 28 May 2014); reduction to PFC / E-3, forfeiture of $1,017 pay for two months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 6 November 2014, relates the applicant had Axis I, II and III that medical diagnoses were documented in AHLTA in accordance with AR 40-66. He was screened for PTSD and TBI, these conditions were either not present or, if present, did not meet AR 40-501 criteria for a medical evaluation board. He met medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501, Chapter 3. There was no psychiatric disease or defect which warrants disposition through medical channels. The applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. He was cleared for administrative separation. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); and a DD Form 214. 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, the issues and document 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 feels his service merits an honorable discharge. 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 further contends, he does not believe his failed urinalysis should prevent his discharge from being upgraded. The applicant by abusing illegal drugs 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 also contends, he failed his drug test due to taking an anti-anxiety drug, he now takes for anxiety he developed in the Service. The service record contains no evidence of an anxiety diagnosis and the applicant did not submit any evidence to support the contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant additionally contends, he wants to hold his head up high for serving his country. 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 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 17 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 AR20190000744 1