Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/04/02 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was young and immature when he was in the Army. He lacked discipline, respect and a sense of responsibility. The Army was and still is his desired career. He regrets his conduct and is requesting an upgrade so he can rejoin the Army and support his country. He is now twenty years old and has been employed in the public sector; however, nothing compares to his military life and family. He has matured over the past three years and is now a responsible and respectful adult. His records will show only one single blemish on his records. 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: 101015 Discharge Received: Date: 101129 Chapter: 14-12c(2) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: D Company, 2nd Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 101009, wrongfully possessed drug paraphernalia (10094); wrongfully possessed some amount of marijuana (100904); wrongfully used marijuana (100804); reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $723 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty for 45 days; (FG). 101027, wrongfully used cocaine (100923 – 100930); forfeiture of $723 pay for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 17 Current ENL Date: 090811 Current ENL Term: 4 Years 19 Weeks Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 18 Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 3 Mos, 18 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B1P Infantryman GT: 101 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Post Service Accomplishments: None VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 15 October 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, for being found in possession of drug paraphernalia (100904); being found in possession of marijuana (100904); and wrongfully having used marijuana (100804 – 100904), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 19 October 2010, 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 Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 8 November 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade to the applicant's characterization of discharge. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because his quality of 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 his quality of service below that meriting an 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. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the accomplishments outlined with the application. In review of the applicant’s service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The analyst noted the applicant’s issue of youth and immaturity; however, there is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The analyst noted that 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 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. The analyst noted that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) found in the applicant's official record shows that the test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.” The commander directs an individual test for fitness for duty. The commander has a suspicion that a Soldier is using a controlled substance; however, does not have probable cause. The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85. However, the evidence of record contains a developmental counseling form that indicates the applicant was reported to the commander because marijuana could be smelled being burned in his room. This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis. Additionally, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, who would have informed him if the Limited Use Policy applied. In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for “Probable Cause” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.” The analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case. The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made. At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. 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: 12 September 2012 Location: Washington, D. C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement and a DD Form 214 VIII. 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. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) ????? X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder 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 AR20120006627 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 pages