Types of Chapter Discharges in the Army

In the U.S. Army, “chapter discharges” refer to the chapters of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations, which implements Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations. Each chapter sets out the legal basis, procedures, and authorized characterizations of service for separating an enlisted Soldier before, at, or after the expiration of their term of service. The chapter cited on a Soldier’s DD Form 214 tells the story of why they left the Army — and it often determines their post-service benefits, reenlistment eligibility, and reputation.

Chapter 4 – Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation

Chapter 4 governs the routine separation of a Soldier whose enlistment contract has expired (ETS) or who has otherwise fulfilled their active duty obligation. Service under Chapter 4 is almost always characterized as Honorable, and it is the most common discharge in the Army.

Chapter 5 – Separation for Convenience of the Government

Chapter 5 covers a broad set of involuntary and voluntary separations initiated by the Army when retaining the Soldier is no longer in the government’s interest. Subcategories include sole-survivor/surviving family member discharge, involuntary separation due to parenthood, separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards, early release to further education, and separation for other designated physical or mental conditions. Characterization is typically Honorable, though a General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge may be issued where the record warrants.

Chapter 6 – Separation Because of Dependency or Hardship

Chapter 6 allows a Soldier to request separation when continued service results in genuine dependency or hardship affecting their family — for example, the death of a spouse leaving minor children, or the inability of a parent to care for themselves. The hardship must not be temporary and must have arisen or worsened since entry on active duty.

Chapter 7 – Defective Enlistments, Reenlistments, and Extensions

Chapter 7 addresses enlistment contracts that are legally flawed. Sections cover minority enlistment (a Soldier who enlisted without proper parental consent), erroneous enlistments (the Soldier was not legally qualified at the time of enlistment but the defect was not their fault), and fraudulent entry (the Soldier procured enlistment through deliberate misrepresentation, such as concealing a criminal record). Fraudulent entry may result in separation under Other Than Honorable conditions; minority and erroneous enlistments generally result in an Uncharacterized or Honorable discharge.

Chapter 8 – Separation for Pregnancy

Chapter 8 provides a voluntary separation option for pregnant Soldiers. Pregnancy alone is not a basis for involuntary separation; the Soldier must request the separation after counseling on her options and entitlements.

Chapter 9 – Separation for a Substance Use Disorder

Chapter 9 authorizes separation when a Soldier enrolled in a substance use disorder treatment program fails to complete it successfully or is determined to lack the potential for further rehabilitation. The basis for separation is rehabilitation failure rather than the underlying substance use itself. Characterization is typically Honorable or General.

Chapter 10 – Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial

Chapter 10 allows a Soldier facing court-martial charges that could result in a punitive discharge to request administrative separation instead. If approved, the Soldier almost always receives an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge, avoiding a federal conviction but typically forfeiting most VA benefits.

Chapter 11 – Entry-Level Performance and Conduct

Chapter 11 applies to Soldiers in entry-level status — generally the first 180 days of continuous active service, as defined by DoDI 1332.14. Separation may be warranted for inability, lack of reasonable effort, failure to adapt to the military environment, or minor disciplinary infractions. Because the Soldier has not had enough time on active duty to demonstrate a meaningful record, service is Uncharacterized rather than Honorable or General.

Chapter 12 – Retirement for Length of Service

Chapter 12 covers voluntary retirement after qualifying years of active federal service. Retirement is characterized as Honorable and entitles the Soldier to retired pay, lifetime medical benefits through TRICARE, and other privileges.

Chapter 13 – Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance

Chapter 13 authorizes separation of Soldiers whose performance is sub-standard but does not rise to the level of misconduct. The commander must determine that the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to be a satisfactory Soldier, that further rehabilitative efforts are unlikely to succeed, or that the Soldier’s continued service would have a disruptive effect. Characterization is Honorable or General (Under Honorable Conditions).

Chapter 14 – Separation for Misconduct

Chapter 14 is the misconduct chapter and the most consequential administrative separation in AR 635-200. It covers two broad categories: separation based on conviction by a civil court, and separation based on acts or patterns of misconduct committed during military service. The misconduct category itself is further divided into minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (which includes abuse of illegal drugs), and other forms of misconduct. The authorized characterization is Other Than Honorable, though a General (Under Honorable Conditions) or Honorable discharge may still be issued if the Soldier’s overall record warrants it. Because Chapter 14 separations almost always carry serious post-service consequences — loss of most VA benefits, ineligibility for reenlistment, and a permanent mark on the DD Form 214 — Soldiers facing this action are entitled to consult with defense counsel and, in most cases, to demand an administrative separation board.

Chapter 15 – Secretarial Plenary Authority

Chapter 15 reserves authority to the Secretary of the Army to direct separation in cases that do not fit neatly into any other chapter, or where the circumstances warrant Secretarial-level review. This authority is used sparingly for unusual cases involving national interest, equity, or policy considerations. Characterization is determined by the Secretary based on the facts.

Chapter 16 – Selected Changes in Service Obligations

Chapter 16 consolidates a variety of specialized early-separation provisions, including discharge to accept a commission or warrant appointment, reduction in force or budgetary separations, separation of Soldiers in Soldier Recovery Units, inactivation-related separations, and the holiday early transition program. It also houses the Enlisted Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and the Enlisted Qualitative Service Program (QSP), which allow Human Resources Command to involuntarily separate NCOs identified as the least competitive in their grade. Characterization is generally Honorable.

Chapter 18 – Failure to Meet Body Composition Standards

Chapter 18 authorizes separation of Soldiers enrolled in the Army Body Composition Program who fail to make satisfactory progress or who exceed standards again within 12 months of removal. The Soldier must have been given a reasonable opportunity to comply. Characterization is normally Honorable.

Characterization of Service

Independent of the chapter, every administrative discharge carries one of three characterizations.

• Honorable – Meritorious or fully satisfactory service.
• General (Under Honorable Conditions) – Service was honest and faithful but marred by significant negative aspects.
• Other Than Honorable (OTH) – A pattern of behavior or one or more serious acts that constitute a significant departure from expected conduct.

Two further characterizations exist but are punitive, not administrative, and may only be adjudged by a court-martial under the UCMJ:

• Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) – Adjudged by a special or general court-martial.
• Dishonorable Discharge (DD) – Adjudged by a general court-martial only, reserved for the most serious offenses.

Conclusion

Understanding which chapter applies to a separation matters far beyond the moment a Soldier signs out of the Army. The chapter and characterization recorded on the DD Form 214 follow a veteran for life, shaping eligibility for VA healthcare, the GI Bill, home loans, federal employment preferences, and even something as routine as a civilian job application. A discharge that seems minor at the time can close doors decades later, and one that seems devastating can sometimes be upgraded through the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. If you are a Soldier facing a chapter action, do not rely on hallway advice. Speak with a military defense attorney before signing anything, ask hard questions about the specific chapter being pursued, and make sure you understand every right you are being asked to waive.

If you are a veteran living with a less-than-honorable discharge, speak with an experienced military attorney to evaluate whether an upgrade is possible. The chapter on your paperwork is part of your record, but it does not have to be the final word on your service.

The Army Drug Testing Process: A Soldier’s Guide to Urinalysis

From the moment a Soldier is directed to provide a sample to the point results reach the command, every step of the Army urinalysis process is governed by binding regulatory requirements. Those requirements exist to prevent substitution, dilution, adulteration, and documentation failures — and to ensure the results that drive personnel decisions can withstand scrutiny. Unit collection personnel are responsible for controlling the testing environment, confirming each Soldier’s identity, and safeguarding every specimen from collection through shipment to the laboratory.

Two primary DoD instructions govern the technical side of this process: DoDI 1010.16 controls collection methods and chain-of-custody requirements, while DoDI 1010.10 establishes the overarching DoD drug testing program structure. The Army implements both through AR 600-85, its Substance Abuse Program regulation.

This guide covers how the Army urinalysis collection process is structured, what makes a test legally valid, how chain-of-custody requirements operate, and what a positive result actually sets in motion.

Every Urinalysis Must Rest on a Lawful Test Basis

The Army is not authorized to collect urine on a whim. Every urinalysis must be tied to a recognized lawful basis before a Soldier can be directed to provide a specimen. Army and DoD policy identify several accepted categories, including:

• Random inspection testing under the unit inspection program
• Unit sweep inspections
• Pre-accession or initial entry testing
• Consent testing
• Probable cause testing
• Command-directed or medically authorized testing, where regulation permits

DoDI 1010.10 requires commanders to administer drug testing programs under proper authority and within defined categories. AR 600-85 governs how the Army applies those categories and how commanders are expected to respond once results are received.

Chain of Custody: The Foundation of a Valid Result

The reliability of any Army urinalysis rests on chain-of-custody discipline. Units document every stage of specimen handling on DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document — Drug Testing). Under DoDI 1010.16, custody must remain unbroken and all required paperwork must be completed from collection through receipt at the laboratory.

Specimen integrity is protected through direct observation. DoDI 1010.16 mandates collection under strict procedures, including direct observation by a same-sex observer who witnesses the urine leave the body and enter the collection bottle — eliminating any opportunity for substitution or tampering.

In operational terms:

• Every handoff of the specimen must be tracked and recorded
• All required signatures must appear on the custody form
• The unit holds the specimen secure until it is transferred to the laboratory
• Any missing entry or gap in documented custody creates risk to the credibility and admissibility of the result

A chain-of-custody break can generate serious legal problems even when the laboratory chemistry is otherwise conclusive.

DoD-Certified Laboratories Process All Army Specimens

Army specimens are shipped to DoD-certified forensic drug testing laboratories that operate under standardized methods, cutoff levels, confirmation protocols, and reporting requirements. DoDI 1010.10 sets the program structure; DoDI 1010.16 controls the technical handling and testing procedures those labs must follow.

DoD laboratory certification standardizes:

• Screening and confirmation testing methods
• Cutoff thresholds that determine when a result is reported as positive
• Retesting rules and procedures
• Reporting formats submitted to commands
• Specimen retention requirements

What a Positive Result Actually Triggers

A confirmed positive urinalysis does not resolve the matter — it opens the command and legal process. AR 600-85 governs how commanders respond to confirmed positive results; DoDI 1010.10 sets the broader DoD requirements for program reliability and oversight.

A Positive Result Does Not Automatically Establish Wrongful Use

Article 112a of the UCMJ criminalizes wrongful use of controlled substances. Wrongful use requires both knowledge and the absence of lawful authorization. A laboratory result can support an inference of knowing use — but that inference is not automatic, it does not apply in every case, and it is rebuttable.

Defenses that arise in contested cases include:

• Unknowing ingestion
• Documented prescription or lawful medical authorization
• Contamination or specimen handling irregularities
• Collection defects that undermine the result’s reliability

The command’s ultimate decision depends on the evidence as a whole — the test basis, the procedural record, and the surrounding circumstances — not the lab report alone.

Substances Tested and DoD Confirmatory Cutoff Levels

A DoD-certified laboratory reports a positive only when a specimen meets the confirmatory cutoff thresholds established in DoDI 1010.16. The DoD core panel cutoffs are:

• Cannabinoid metabolites (Marijuana): 15 ng/mL
• Cocaine metabolites: 100 ng/mL
• Amphetamine / Methamphetamine: 100 ng/mL
• Designer amphetamines (MDMA/MDA): 500 ng/mL
• Heroin metabolite (6-AM): 10 ng/mL
• Hydrocodone: 100 ng/mL
• Hydromorphone: 100 ng/mL
• Codeine / Morphine: 2,000 ng/mL
• Oxycodone: 100 ng/mL
• Oxymorphone: 100 ng/mL
• Benzodiazepines: 100 ng/mL
• Fentanyl / Norfentanyl: 1.0 ng/mL

Labs may also test a percentage of specimens — or units may request additional testing — for substances such as LSD or synthetic cannabinoids, as authorized under DoDI 1010.16.

Retesting: What Is Permitted and What It Cannot Fix

Retesting is available under defined conditions, but Soldiers should not assume it will occur automatically. DoDI 1010.16 authorizes retesting only when sufficient specimen volume remains and the request is submitted through proper channels following required procedures.

Time is a critical factor. Once the laboratory has depleted or destroyed the specimen under its retention schedule, retesting is no longer possible.

A retest can confirm or fail to confirm the originally reported result. What it cannot do is remedy:

• Observer failures during collection
• Gaps or errors in chain-of-custody documentation
• Handling, labeling, or identification mistakes
• Test basis coding errors or authorization deficiencies

Procedural defects are independent of chemistry. Retesting the specimen does not cure them.

A Soldier’s Rights Following a Positive Result

A confirmed positive result can trigger UCMJ action, administrative separation, and the loss of substantial benefits. It is not a bureaucratic formality. Soldiers retain the right to remain silent and the right to consult with legal counsel.

Action should be taken immediately upon notification:

• Invoke the right to remain silent — do not make statements about drug use to anyone before consulting counsel.
• Request legal counsel without delay — before the command takes further action.
• Engage counsel early enough to identify and preserve defenses, including procedural defects in the collection record.

An attorney experienced in military drug cases can examine every component of the record: the stated test basis, chain-of-custody documentation, observer compliance, and the laboratory file.

Common Collection Defects in Army Urinalysis Cases

Many of the most contested Army urinalysis cases turn not on the lab result but on how the specimen was collected and handled. DoDI 1010.16 imposes standardized collection requirements to ensure reliability, and failures to meet those requirements can directly affect both admissibility and evidentiary weight.

Defects identified in contested cases include:

• Observer failures — the observer does not maintain continuous direct observation as required
• Chain-of-custody gaps or missing entries on DD Form 2624
• Identity verification or bottle control failures during the collection event
• Test basis coding errors that do not accurately reflect the authority under which the collection occurred
• Handling, storage, or shipment irregularities that create questions about specimen integrity

These defects do not automatically result in dismissal. However, they can meaningfully influence command decisions, separation outcomes, and evidentiary use in both court-martial proceedings and administrative separation boards.

Final Thoughts

The Army urinalysis program functions as both a readiness tool and an accountability mechanism — but it also carries significant legal consequences for individual Soldiers. The integrity of the process depends on a lawful test basis, strict observation procedures, fully documented chain of custody on DD Form 2624, and compliance with the technical standards set by DoD. Gaps in any of those areas create room to challenge the result.

If you are facing a positive urinalysis result, consult with an experienced military defense attorney as early as possible. The record that matters most is often assembled — or lost — in the days immediately following notification.

Governing Authorities

• DoDI 1010.10 — Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program (MPDATP)
• DoDI 1010.16 — Technical Procedures for the MPDATP
• AR 600-85 — The Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)

Can an RE-4 Reentry Code Be Upgraded?

Under the right circumstances, yes. DoD policy does not grant reentry code changes simply because a veteran wishes to return to service. What it does allow — when properly documented — is a correction when the code was incorrectly assigned or when the separation that generated it was improper or unjust.

Understanding the RE-4 Code

Upon leaving military service, every service member receives a Reentry Eligibility (RE) code on their DD Form 214. This code communicates to future military recruiters and federal employers whether that individual is eligible to return to service. Across every branch, RE-4 carries a single, consistent meaning: the holder is barred from reenlistment due to a disqualification that cannot be waived. The most common reasons an RE-4 is assigned include misconduct, an active bar to reenlistment, and certain criminal convictions.

Each branch administers RE codes through its own governing regulation:

• Army — AR 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program)
• Navy and Marine Corps — BUPERSINST 1900.8F (both branches share the same instruction and code structure)
• Air Force and Space Force — DAFI 36-2606 (applies to Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, and Space Force)
• Coast Guard — COMDTINST M1000.4 and COMDTINST M1000.2 (Military Separations and Enlistments, Evaluations, and Advancements)

Regardless of branch, the governing principle is the same: the RE code reflects the reason for separation — not how that service was characterized.

Will a Discharge Upgrade Clear an RE-4?

No. This is the mistake veterans most often make — and it costs them time.

The RE code is tied to the reason for separation, not to how that service was characterized. A veteran can hold an Honorable discharge and still carry an RE-4. These are separate elements of the separation record, and changing one does not move the other. Securing a character upgrade through a Discharge Review Board leaves the RE code completely untouched.

This principle applies uniformly across every branch. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) states plainly on its official site that the RE code is not upgraded to allow enlistment. AR 601-210 authorizes a change only when an incorrect code was entered at the time of separation. BUPERSINST 1900.8F, DAFI 36-2606, and the Coast Guard separation manuals operate the same way: an RE code records the reason for separation, and wanting to reenlist does not alter that reason.

When Is an RE-4 Change Actually Available?

A path to change exists on exactly two grounds:

Error — The wrong code was assigned at separation. The separation document does not accurately reflect the actual reason the service member left.

Injustice — The underlying separation was itself improper or inequitable, which renders the RE code that flowed from it equally defective.

Both grounds require documented proof submitted to the appropriate review authority. Review boards begin from the presumption that the military record is accurate. The full burden of overcoming that presumption rests with the applicant.

Which Board Hears Your Case?

Discharge Review Board (DRB)

Each branch operates its own Discharge Review Board under DoD Directive 1332.41. Veterans who separated within the past 15 years file DD Form 293 — Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States — to the applicable service board.

The DRB evaluates whether the discharge was:

• Improper — issued contrary to law, regulation, or established procedure
• Inequitable — inconsistent with the policies and traditions of the service

When the DRB changes the reason for separation, the RE code may change along with it.

Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR)

Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, each branch maintains a Board for Correction of Military Records as the highest administrative review authority:

• ABCMR — Army Board for Correction of Military Records
• AFBCMR — Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
• BCNR — Board for Correction of Naval Records (Navy & Marine Corps)
• CGBCMR — Coast Guard Board for Correction of Military Records

Veterans who have passed the 15-year DRB window — or who have already exhausted DRB review — apply to the BCMR using DD Form 149. The BCMR has no strict time limit when relief is sought in the interest of justice.

What Evidence Actually Moves a Board?

Boards do not grant relief because a veteran has turned their life around or wants a second opportunity. They grant relief when the record itself was wrong. Persuasive petitions are built on evidence, not on narrative. Submissions that have moved boards include:

• Military personnel records demonstrating that the assigned RE code does not match the documented reason for separation
• Medical records establishing a condition that drove the discharge — particularly if it was misdiagnosed at the time or has since been resolved
• Command statements from officers or noncommissioned officers with direct, firsthand knowledge of the circumstances
• Legal records showing that a conviction underlying the separation was subsequently overturned or expunged
• Mental health documentation — the Secretary of Defense Memorandum of September 3, 2014 directs boards to apply liberal consideration when PTSD, TBI, or other service-connected mental health conditions contributed to the separation

When a veteran successfully demonstrates that the original separation was flawed, boards have corrected RE-4 designations to RE-1 — fully restoring reenlistment eligibility.

The Real Cost of an RE-4

An RE-4 is not simply a barrier to reenlistment. Its reach extends into other areas of a veteran’s life and career:

• Federal employment eligibility and security clearance adjudications
• The implied stigma of misconduct attached to a permanent record — even when the discharge characterization itself is Honorable
• VA benefits review in certain circumstances
• Career opportunities with defense contractors and government-adjacent employers who routinely examine DD-214s

Veterans carrying an RE-4 should consult an experienced military records attorney early in the process. The filing procedure is formal, the evidentiary burden is genuine, and boards routinely deny incomplete or unsupported petitions.

Frequently Asked Questions: RE-4 Reentry Codes

This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Contact our office for a consultation specific to your situation.

Anabolic Steroids & SARMs in the U.S. Military: What Every Service Member Should Know

The short answer is yes — the U.S. military has the authority to test for anabolic steroids. However, steroid screening is not part of the standard random urinalysis panel run by the Department of Defense. In practice, steroid tests are typically initiated through targeted action — meaning a commander or investigator must have a specific, credible reason to order one.

The Governing Policy: DoD Instruction 1010.01

All military drug testing is governed by DoD Instruction (DoDI) 1010.01. This instruction establishes the framework under which the Services operate their urinalysis programs, defines how DoD-certified laboratories conduct testing, and supports overall military readiness through a standardized drug deterrence strategy.

Critically, DoDI 1010.01 explicitly classifies anabolic steroids as controlled substances. This classification gives commanders and investigators a clear legal foundation to pursue steroid cases with the same seriousness as any other controlled-substance matter — provided credible information exists to support a targeted test.

It is important to understand that DoDI 1010.01 does not create an open-ended authority to test for everything on every sample. The instruction reflects a structured, rules-based program with defined lab procedures and testing criteria.

Routine Testing vs. Targeted Steroid Testing

Standard random urinalysis conducted under the Military Personnel Drug Abuse Testing Program (MPDATP) focuses on a core set of substances. Steroids are generally not included in this routine panel — largely because detecting them requires specialized testing methods and dedicated laboratory resources that go beyond what is practical for every random sample.

Steroid testing becomes a real possibility when the facts on the ground point to it. Commands typically reserve this type of testing for situations where evidence supports a focused investigation. Common circumstances that can trigger a targeted steroid test include:

• Documented evidence of possession or distribution of anabolic steroids
• Medical indicators or physical signs consistent with performance-enhancing drug use
• Command-directed action connected to other misconduct
• Active investigations involving controlled substances where steroids are implicated

SARMs: A Separate but Equally Serious Risk

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) are frequently marketed as performance supplements, often labeled as “research chemicals” or billed as legal substitutes for anabolic steroids. That framing, however, does not protect service members under DoD policy.

DoD Instruction 6130.06 (Use of Dietary Supplements in the DoD) is unambiguous: service members will not use any product containing an ingredient listed on the DoD Prohibited Dietary Supplement Ingredients List published by the OPSS — unless a DoD healthcare provider has specifically authorized use. The OPSS list names individual SARMs explicitly, including MK-677 and RAD-140.

While SARMs may not appear consistently on standard random urinalysis panels, use is not consequence-free. Commanders may treat violations of the OPSS prohibited ingredients rule as failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation under UCMJ Article 92 (10 U.S.C. § 892). A negative drug test result does not shield a service member from Article 92 enforcement.

UCMJ Exposure: What’s Actually on the Line

Because DoDI 1010.01 classifies anabolic steroids as controlled substances, illicit possession or use creates direct UCMJ exposure. The consequences are not limited to administrative inconvenience — they can be career-ending or worse. A service member found to have used or possessed steroids illegally faces:

• Command investigation
• Nonjudicial punishment (NJP / Article 15)
• Administrative separation
• Court-martial — particularly in cases involving distribution

Any service member who is under investigation or already facing punishment in connection with steroid use should consult an experienced military attorney as early as possible.

Frequently Asked Questions