BOARD DATE: 9 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140001485

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.

Presiding Officer

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.


1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, he achieved and maintained sobriety after being discharged; he integrated into the community, held a steady job, volunteers at a 12 step program group, sponsors new members and speaks at treatment facilities. He was a youth at the time and did not have the ability to understand how to deal with his addiction. His discharge hinders his employment opportunities. He desires to reenlist and fulfill his original commitment to the Army.


a. Application Receipt Date: 22 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 1 May 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 2-503rd Infantry (Airborne), 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Vicenza, IT
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 25 January 2011, 4 years and 19 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 1 year, 3 months, 7 days
h. Total Service: 1 year, 3 months, 7 days
i. Lost time: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-2
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 11C1P, Indirect Fire Infantryman
m. GT Score: 108
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Italy
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: None
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 January 2011, for a period of 4 years and 19 weeks. He was 18 years old at the time of entry and a HS Graduate. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11C1P, Indirect Fire Infantryman. His record does not contain any evidence of acts of valor or meritorious achievements; and he achieved the rank of PV2/E-2. He was serving in Italy when his discharge was initiated.


1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates on 30 March 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), for wrongfully using cocaine x 2 (110808, 120104).

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights.

3. On 30 March 2012, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

4. On 4 April 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 1 May 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKQ and an RE code of 3.

6. The applicants service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


1. The applicant received a negative counseling statement, dated 7 February 2012, for testing positive for the use of a controlled substance, his second offense.

2. The record contains two positive urinalysis reports, one coded IU (Inspection Unit) dated 8 August 2011 and one coded IR (Inspection Random), dated 4 January 2012, both for cocaine.

3. DA Form (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 29 February 2012, indicating the applicant had a full assessment through ASAP and ASAP involvement has been completed. He was cleared for command actions, including administrative separation.


The applicant provided a DD Form 293, a DD Form 214, self-authored statement, and three support statements.


The applicant stated he volunteers at a 12 step program group, sponsors new members and speaks at treatment facilities.


1. 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.

2. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the members service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldiers separation specifically allows such characterization.


1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The record confirms the applicants 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. The applicants record of service was marred by a negative counseling statement and two positive urinalysis reports.
3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

4. The applicant contends he achieved and maintained sobriety after being discharged; he integrated into the community, held a steady job, volunteers at a 12 step program group, sponsors new members and speaks at treatment facilities. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, these contentions are 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.

5. The applicant further contends he was a youth at the time did not have the ability to understand how to deal with his addiction. 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.

6. 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.

7. The applicant also contends his discharge hinders his employment opportunities. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

8. The applicant desires to reenlist and fulfill his original commitment to the Army. 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 3. There is no basis to grant a change to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.

9. The third party statements provided with the application speak highly of the applicants performance. They all recognize his good conduct after leaving the Army; however, the persons providing the character reference statements were not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicants chain of command. As such, none of these statements provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity.

10. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

11. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, the analyst recommends the Board deny relief.

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 9 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, NA

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
Other: NA

AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record FG – Field Grade IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE – Reentry
AWOL – Absent Without Leave GD – General Discharge NA – Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge HS – High School NIF – Not in File SPCM – Special Court Martial
CG – Company Grade Article 15 HD – Honorable Discharge OAD – Ordered to Active Duty UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge
CID – Criminal investigation Department MP Military Police OMPF – Official Military Personnel File UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140001485

Page 6 of 6 pages