Application Receipt Date: 06/09/25 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See attached DD 293 along with additional supporting documentation. 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: 05/11/10 Discharge Received: Date: 05/12/18 Chapter: 14 Para 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: United States Army Dental Activity United States Military Academy West Point, New York 10996 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 05/09/21 On or about 21 July 2005 and on or about 19 August 2005, wrongfully use marijuana, a controlled substance; Field Grade. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 83/02/14 Current ENL Date: 01/08/08 Current ENL Term: 06 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 04Mos, 11Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 04Mos, 11Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91E10 Dental Specialist GT: 118 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Aisa (02/00/00) Combat: Iraq (20030312 to 20031016) Decorations/Awards: ACM (2nd Award), AAM, (3rd Award), AGCM, NDSM, NCOPDR, ASR,OSR, GWOTM, GWOTEM 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: The evidence of record shows that on 10 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for wrongful use of marijuana (on or about 21 Jul 2005 and or about 19 Aug 2005). He was advised of his rights. 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 service with a General discharge. On 22 November 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: 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 absence 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, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and along with the circumstanses surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 October 2007 Location: Washington DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None 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 5 No change 0 - 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 characterization of service was too harsh based upon the applicant's length of service, quality of service, circumstances surrounding the discharge and combat service. Case report reviewed and verified by: Earl Silver, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: None 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: 02 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013803 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages