Application Receipt Date: 061130	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant.

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: 041213
Discharge Received:     Date: 041231   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: E Btry, 5-7 ADA, APO AE 09165 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041130-Wrongfully used Methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine (Ecstasy) (040908-040912), wrongfully used Methylene-dioxy-amphetamine (040908-040912), wrongfully possess some amount of Methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine (Ecstasy) and Methylene-dioxy-amphetamine (040908-040912) , reduction to E-1, $596 x 2, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG).   

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier's Overall Record
DOB:  830520  
Current ENL Date: 030306    Current ENL Term: 5 Years       
Current ENL Service: 01  Yrs, 09 Mos, 25 Days      
Total Service:  01  Yrs, 09 Mos, 25 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14E10 Ptroit Fire Control Enhanced Operator/Maintainer   GT: 118   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states she is an outstanding employee at the Pet Doctor in Boise, ID, a full-time student at Boise State University and a faithful attendant at the Calvary Chapel in Boise.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 13 December 2004 , 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, she tested positive for MDMA (Ecstacy) a schedule I controlled substance, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her 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 21 December 2004, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 issues; however, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4."  An RE code of "4" can not be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.  Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command, and 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 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: 9 January 2008              
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: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, 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:      
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060016707

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages