BOARD DATE: 21 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002088

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 general, under honorable conditions discharge to honorable.

2. The applicant states, in effect, his spouses infidelity, coupled with the images of the mortar rounds hitting the dining facility that he was in and his sudden reassignment to another unit, contributed to the nightmares he was experiencing. The applicant contends, he did not want to be perceived as being weak, so he started drinking and smoking marijuana as a way to cope with the stress and restless nights. The applicant states, he was told that he was going to the Army Substance Abuse Program; however, he was never told when. The applicant contends, he was tired mentally and tired of crying everyday so he gave up. The applicant states, he is a proud veteran and wants to better his life by going to college.


a. Application Receipt Date: 28 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 7 February 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: 11th Quartermaster Company, 264th Combat
Sustainment Support Battalion, 82d Sustainment Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 24 June 2008/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 2 months, 9 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 9 days
i. Time Lost: 158 days
j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 080611-080623, N/A
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 92A10, Automated Logistical
m. GT Score: 99
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: SWA
p. Combat Service: Iraq (090928-100929)
q. Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM-CS, ASR,
r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A
s. Performance Ratings: N/A
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No


The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 2008 for a period of 4 years. He was 22 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Iraq, earned an ARCOM, and completed 3 years, 2 months, and 9 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.


1. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 19 December 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), by reason misconduct (drug abuse). Specifically for the following offenses:

a. testing positive for marijuana (110308), and
b. being AWOL (110526-111031)

2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

3. On 20 December 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf. The record is void of the applicants statement. 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 20 January 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 7 February 2012, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), for misconduct (drug abuse), a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JKK and an RE code of 4.

6. The applicant’s record shows he was absent without leave (AWOL) during the period 110526 through 111031. The applicant was apprehended and returned to military control.


1. There is one positive urinalysis report contained in the record:

IU, Inspection Unit, 23 February 2011, marijuana

2. An Article 15, dated 18 April 2011, for wrongfully using marijuana between on or about 6 February 2011 and 8 March 2011. The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of
E-2, forfeiture of $822.00 pay (suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG).

3. One negative counseling statement, dated 14 March 2011, for violating General
Article 112a.

4. Five DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), duty status changes to reflect the following:

a. from Present for Duty to Absent without Leave, effective 26 May 2011,
b. from Absent without Leave to Dropped from Rolls, effective 25 June 2011,
c. from Dropped from Rolls to Present for Duty, effective 31 October 2011,
d. from Present for Duty to Absent without Leave, effective 9 January 2012; and,
e. from Absent without Leave to Present for Duty, effective 17 January 2012.

5. MEDCOM Form 4838 (Report of Behavioral Health Evaluation), dated 17 March 2011, reflects the applicant had a clear and normal thought process and was mentally responsible. In addition, the applicant was screened for PTSD and mTBI as part of a standard screening process and was found not to meet the criteria for either diagnosis.


1. The applicant provided a self-authored statement outlining his time prior to, during, and post service. The applicant states, in effect, he was overwhelmed with the stress stemming from his spouses infidelity and witnessing the mortar attack on the dining facility; therefore, he turned to drinking and smoking marijuana as a coping mechanism.

2. Email, dated 3 January 2014, written by SGT G, applicants former platoon sergeant, stating the applicant was a very hard worker, always showed up to work on time, and completed every mission given. She also states, the leadership failed to send the applicant to ASAP to get him help for his drug addiction.


None was provided with the application.


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 documents and the issues 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 an Article 15 for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and one negative counseling statement.

3. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command’s action was erroneous or that the applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.

4. The applicant contends he is entitled to an upgrade of his discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his misconduct. Specifically, he claims stress at work and marital issues resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his marital issues and stress work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct

5. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge would allow educational benefits through the use of the GI Bill. However, eligibility for veteran’s 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.

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

7. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.


Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 21 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) AR20140002088

Page 6 of 6 pages