Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/01/19 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states in effect, that he served with distinction except for an isolated incident for which he served his punishment and requested to be separated due to extenuating circumstances and against the wishes of his command. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 041229 Discharge Received: Date: 050126 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: C Btry, 4-27 FA Bn, Baumholder, GE Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041129, wrongfully used marijuana on two occasions (041001-041101 and 041004-041104), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $597 per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 030903 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 04Mos, 24Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 04Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember GT: 121 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA, Germany Combat: Iraq (040214-040716) Decorations/Awards: MUC, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 December 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense, for wrongfully using marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 29 December 2004, the applicant waived his right to consult 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 discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 13 January 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed 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 of this regulation 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, however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. The analyst determined that 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. 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 service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant contends that he was diagnosed with PTSD by the Veterans Administration as outlined in the documents with his application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. The analyst concluded that just because someone is suffering from PTSD does not mean that they don't know the difference between right and wrong or that they do not have control over their behavior. There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully. The applicant also contends that this was an isolated incident; however, even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident (two-time illegal drug use), provides the basis for a characterization. The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 October 2010 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: VA PTSD diagnosis, ARCOM award. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and notwithstanding the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board noted that the government introduced the results of a command directed urinalysis into the discharge process. This is limited use information as defined in AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the board found that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and voted not to change it. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 5 No change 0 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20100006978 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages