Application Receipt Date: 061201	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states that since his discharge in 2002, he has spent many years getting his life back together. He is interested in becoming a uniformed police officer. His discharge is the only thing holding him back from this goal.   When he was court martialed in 2001 he was not discharged for his offenses. However this was a factor when he tested positive on a urinalysis.  

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: 020718
Discharge Received:     Date: 020808   
Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: A Co, 1-504th IN Bn, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None indicated on the DD Form 214, however the record indicates he was sentenced to 4 months confinement by GCM conviction (010709).

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020528, wrongful use of marijuana (020304-020404), forfeiture of $500 x 2,  45 days extra duty and restriction (FG)

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010709, GCM, stealing a computer and a scanner and mailing stolen property, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $696 x 6, confinement for 6 months (to serve 4 months) 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier's Overall Record
DOB:  761130  
Current ENL Date: 000613    Current ENL Term: 3 Years       
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 01Mos, 26Days      
Total Service:  04 Yrs, 03Mos, 04Days      
Previous Discharges: RA 980505-000612/HD
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B1P/Infantryman   GT: 107   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
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 18 July 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-for illegal use of a controlled substance (020304-020404) and for having been found guilty by a General Court Martial (010709) for larceny of computer equipment and for mailing stolen property, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  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 service 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 20 July 2002, 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 issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 19 December 2007              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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: Alejandro Champin, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 21 December 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060016576

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages