AR20140002268

IN THE CASE OF: Mr.

BOARD DATE: 17 December 2014

CASE NUMBER: AR20140002268
___________________________________________________________________________

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.

THE APPLICANTS REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1. The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge, a change to the narrative reason for discharge and reentry code.

2. The applicant states, in effect, since leaving the military he has become a great citizen. He states he works and attends church and is an assistant varsity baseball and city youth basketball coach. He volunteers in his town to gather items for deployed Soldiers. He states he has not used any drugs and has no problems with law enforcement. He contends he needs his discharge upgraded, narrative reason and reentry code changed in order to assist with his career in high school athletics and for his family.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date: 31 January 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 25 February 2003
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 130th Engineer Brigade, Germany
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 19 November 1999/4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 3 months, 7 days
h. Total Service: 3 years, 3 months, 7 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 71L10, Administrative Specialist
m. GT Score: 97
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: Germany
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR
r. Administrative Separation Board: NIF
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: Yes
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1999, for a period of 4 years. He was 21 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He has no awards of valor or achievement. He completed 3 years, 3 months, and 7 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving in Germany.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. On 24 January 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense. Specifically for the wrongful use of methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (Ecstasy).

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 29 January 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in 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 12 February 2003, the separation waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

5. The applicant was separated on 25 February 2003, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKQ, and an RE code of 3.

6. The applicants record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:

1. Counseling statement, dated 4 November 2002, for a positive urinalysis on 7 October 2002.

2. Article 15, dated 19 November 2002, for wrongful use of methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (ecstasy). The punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of E-1, forfeiture of $552 per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG).

3. A positive urinalysis tested, dated 7 October 2002, reflects the applicant tested positive for MDMA. The basis for the test was inspection unit (IU).

4. Mental Status Report from the US Army MEDDAC, Heidelberg, reflects the applicant was responsible for his actions and had a chemical dependency.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:

The applicant provided a DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, a DD Form 214 and DD Form 215.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant states he is an assistant varsity baseball coach and city youth basketball coach. He work, attends church, volunteers to gather items for deployed Soldiers, and has not used drugs or had problems with law enforcement.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

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.

4. 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (serious offense).

5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JKQ” will be assigned an RE Code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1. The applicants request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge, a change to the narrative reason and reentry code was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, his military records and 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 a FG Article 15 for drug abuse and a negative counseling statement.

3. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for discharge and the reentry code. However, 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 “JKQ” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct (serious offense). The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.

4. Further, the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “JKQ” will be assigned an RE Code of 3. 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 upon which to grant a change to the reason or 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.

5. 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.

6. The applicant contends that since leaving the Army he no longer uses drugs and has had no problems with law enforcement. He also states he volunteers in his community and is an assistant varsity baseball coach and city youth basketball coach. The applicants post-service accomplishments have been noted as outlined on the application. However, in review of the applicants entire service record and the reasons for the discharge, it appears that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.

7. Further, the Army Discharge Review Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the re-characterization of a discharge. However, there is no law or regulation which provides an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the applicants performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board proceedings. The Board reviews each discharge on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the members overall character.

8. The applicant contends that an upgrade of his discharge will allow him to obtain better employment. However, the Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.

9. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 17 December 2014 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

Legend:
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) AR20140002268

Page 6 of 6 pages

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

1