IN THE CASE OF: Mr.
BOARD DATE: 27 June 2014
CASE NUMBER: AR20140002742
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.
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 to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for discharge.
2. The applicant states, in effect, his use of marijuana was a single isolated incident; and the circumstances surrounding his separation from the military critically impacted his career. He states in 2013, he was celebrating with some of his co-workers and conducted himself in a behavior unbecoming of a Soldier. He takes full responsibility for his actions and the shame he cast on his unit, family, and the Army with his lack of judgment. He contends his discharge has prevented him from obtaining employment.
DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:
a. Application Receipt Date: 7 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge: 26 April 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Drug Abuse), AR 635-200,
Chapter 14-12c(2), JKK, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: HHB, 3-319th Airborne Field Artillery
Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 13 October 2010/6 years, 23 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 2 years, 6 months, 14 days
h. Total Service: 2 years, 6 months, 14 days
i. Time Lost: None
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty: 13R1P, Firefinder Radar Operator
m. GT Score: 98
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
r. Administrative Separation Board: No
s. Performance Ratings: No
t. Counseling Statements: None
u. Prior Board Review: No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 October 2010, for a period of 6 years and 23 weeks. He was 24 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. His record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. He completed 2 years, 6 months, and 14 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. On 14 March 2013, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), misconduct (drug abuse). Specifically for wrongful use of marijuana on two occasions (130107 and 130206).
2. Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
3. On 14 March 2013, the applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. The record is void of his rebuttal 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 28 March 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
5. The applicant was separated on 26 April 2013, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(2), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKK, and an RE code of 4. The applicant was discharged as a PVT/E-1, however, the action which reduced him is not available in his service record.
6. The applicants record does not contain any evidence of any disciplinary actions under the provision of Article 15 of the UCMJ nor unauthorized absences or time lost.
EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT’S RECORD:
Discharge Orders Number 100-0268, dated, 10 April 2013, DA, HQs United States Army Garrison, Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, discharged the applicant from the military, effective 26 April 2013.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT:
The applicant provided an online application, dated 4 February 2014, a DD Form 214 covering the period of service under review, and a memorandum from SGT D, dated 11 March 2013.
The applicant did not provide any in support of his 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.
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 “JKK” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, misconduct (drug abuse).
ANALYSTS DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
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.
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 the event that caused his discharge from the Army was an isolated incident. Although a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.
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.
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.
SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:
Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 27 June 2014 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify, No
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
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) AR20140002742
Page 5 of 5 pages
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)
CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE