Application Receipt Date: 061031 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 051231 Discharge Received: Date: 060216 Chapter: 8-26f AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 1387th QM Water Supply Co, Leland, MS Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier's Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 050527 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 10 Weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 08 Mos, 20 Days Total Service: 04 Yrs, 10 Mos, 00Days Item 10c on the applicant's NGB Form 22, prior active federal service is incorrect, should read 04 Yrs, 10 Mos 00 Days. Previous Discharges: RA-980707-000824/HD RA-000825-020816/GD Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, MWM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 31 October 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 12-1, AR135-178, and paragraph 8-26f, NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct-acts or patterns of misconduct for self-indentifying to the use of THC (marijuana) on (051019) , with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant waived 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 service. The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action. The BG MSARNG, Commander recommended approval in a memorandum addressed to the Adjutant General, State of Mississippi, ATT: JFH-MS-J1-PA-EPM, PO Box 5027, Jackson, MS. The separation authority's memorandum approving the separation action and directing that the applicant be discharged with a characetrization of service is not part of the available record, and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. However, on 17 February 2006, the Mississippi Military Department, The Adjutant's General Office, Jackson, MS, Orders 048-821, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date: 16 February 2006, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. The regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following: minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and therefore recommends that relief be denied in this case. The applicant's 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. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 December 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: , Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 19 December 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE