1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 7 January 2019 b. Date Received: 11 January 2019 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, believes the applicant was not given a fair discharge. The applicant cooperated with all the extra duties and the training that was given. The applicant was having sleep issues and was not able to concentrate. One of the tests used against the applicant was labeled wrong and it was still used. 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 Adjustment Disorder and Alcohol Dependence. The applicant does not currently have a service-connected rating from the VA. The VA has diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, ADHD, and Alcohol Abuse. 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 24 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: 10 February 2012 c. Separation Facts: (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 31 January 2012 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons: for wrongfully using d-amphetamine x2 between (10 October 2011 and 9 November 2011) and between (16 October 2011 and 15 November 2011). (3) Recommended Characterization: General (Under Honorable Conditions) (4) Legal Consultation Date: 2 February 2012 (5) Administrative Separation Board: NA (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 3 February 2012 / General (Under Honorable Conditions) 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 27 June 2008 / 4 years b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 23 / 11 years / 104 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 91E10, Machinist / 3 years, 7 months, 14 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Afghanistan (1 December 2008 to 12 December 2009) f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, AAM, MUC, VUA, AGCM, ACM-CS, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR g. Performance Ratings: None h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 29 November 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP 229 during an Inspection Random (IR) urinalysis testing conducted on 9 November 2011. Electronic copy of the DD Form 2624, dated 5 December 2011, reflects the applicant tested positive for DAMP 668 during an Inspection Unit (IU) urinalysis testing conducted on 15 November 2011. CID Report, dated 19 December 2011, which indicates the applicant was the subject of investigation for wrongful use of dangerous drugs. FG Article 15, dated 17 January 2012, for wrongfully using d-amphetamine x2 between (10 October 2011 and 9 November 2011) and between (16 October 2011 and 15 November 2011). The punishment consisted of reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $700.00 (suspended), and extra duty and restriction for 15 days. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 20 January 2012, which indicates the applicant could understand and participate in administrative proceedings and appreciated the difference between right and wrong. The applicant met medical retention standards per AR 40-131 and was therefore cleared for chapter 14-12, AR 635-200, action. Several negative counseling statements for various acts of misconduct and poor duty performance. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: None j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 and DD Form 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. 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, 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 she should have been retained on Active duty. The applicant seeks relief contending that he believes he was not given a fair discharge. The applicant contends that he cooperated with all extra duties given and training. He was having sleep issues and not able to concentrate. One of the tests used against him was labeled wrong and still used. The applicant's contentions were noted; 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 this issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention that he was not given a fair discharge. The applicant's statement alone does not overcome the government's presumption of regularity and no additional corroborating and supporting documentation or further evidence has been provided with the request for an upgrade of the discharge. 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 24 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 AR20190001772 1