Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/06/06	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues:  The applicant states, in effect, that the incident is the only time he ever got in trouble during his service in the Army, and that his record was clean and his performance was always above the norm.  He had received battalion and brigade level coins during his training at Ft. Sam Houston and was selected by his infantry platoon to receive a coin of excellence during deployment, which was awarded to him in 2010 on the day of the Iraq elections by the Brigade Sergeant Major.  He is unable to find job that does not involve him working under the table with people who only speak Spanish--that is part due to the recession, part due to his discharge, and part due to the fact that he does not have a college diploma, something that he wants to earn so bad.  He states that he reenlisted in 2008 so he could get his GI Bill and that was all he ever wanted, to include having always wanted to be a productive member of society.  He has studied violin for 18 years and want nothing more than to get his music degree, something appears like an unattainable goal.  He asks how can he go to school when he is unable to afford a car, let alone, find a decent work that lets him pay for a life of his own.  He feels as if he was greatly wronged by his chain of command.  He was put through a horrible game of Double Jeopardy, mentally and verbally abused, and taking advantage of on many levels.  He states he deployed with two other Soldiers—they got into trouble together—he adds that they were all wrongfully treated and discharged.  He states his attached statement lays out a pattern of wrongful intent of his chain of command regarding caring and treatment as not just a Soldier, but a person who has served his country voluntarily in time of war.  He is currently selling his personal belongings to make enough money to buy a plane ticket back home to Alaska, where he has a greater network of support involving all his friends and family.  He stayed in San Diego upon his discharged to help his sister with her newborn child, but instead, it turned into his mother helping him out as he cannot make enough money to support himself and he has been forced to move in with his mother.  He turns 28 on June 1st—he cannot even begin to describe how horrible and self-loathing it feels knowing that one has to live at home because they can’t survive on their own.  Before he was discharged, his father called the post commander’s office and inquired as to why he was being discharged with a General Discharge for only failing a urinalysis test once, when there is a two strike post policy.  His father was never able to speak with the Post Commander and instead was given a run-around by a CPT S.  He had also tried to go to JAG, IG, and the Pentagon 1G.  He was told that there is nothing he could do.  The Pentagon IG did inform me however, that although they legally can do what they did by loopholes in the paperwork, but that what they are doing is wrong, and that he should go to his state representatives.  He states that after he had completed his extra duty, he started going to mental health where he was diagnosed with sleep problems, (although never recommended for a study) depression, and anxiety.  He received a regiment of medication of both sleep aids and anti-depressants.  He informed them that he was being discharged and obviously he had issues, and that the issues were more pervasive and as prevalent post-deployment then as pre-deployment.  He had the mental health put a stop to his separation process so he can continue to get evaluated and see if it was really the right course of action, since General [ redacted ] had recently said that kicking out people with problems instead of taking care of them is not the answer.  He refers to a link to an article where General [ redacted ] made that statement while talking about how his brigade was just separating people with problems.  The mental health refused to get involved with trying to stop his separation.  He states that the last four months that he spent in the Army; he considers it to be the most mentally abusive period of his life that he has ever endured.  It greatly impacted his current mental well being and it has also affected his ability to seek help from the VA.  His experiences with the Fort Bliss mental health has shown him that they do not really care about anyone.  He has been struggling with depression, thoughts of suicide, and has been worried that he will lose control of himself in an emotional outburst, both with words and fists.  It was when he saw his father the past week at my sister’s wedding that he realized that he really needed help. 

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: 101026   Chapter: 14-12c(2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: Co M, 244th Quartermaster Battalion, 23d Quartermaster Brigade, Fort Lee, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100730, wrongfully used marijuana - reduced to E-1, forfeiture of $723 x 2 months, and 45-day 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:  25
Current ENL Date: 080319    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 08 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 09 Mos, 20 Days (includes inactive status)
Previous Discharges: 	RA 010619-080318 / HD
			USAR 001030-010618 / NA
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68W (Combat Medic)   GT: 123   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (090504-100403)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2; NDSM; GWOTSM; ICM-CS; ASR; OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  San Diego, CA
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, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for abuse of illegal drugs, to wit: on 100629, Soldier tested positive for use of Marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 18 October 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and although not entitled to an administrative separation board, he elected to waive the board, 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 20 October 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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 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 never felt his discharge was just and that his misconduct was the only time he ever got in trouble during my service in the Army.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and he has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issues about having better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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.  Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       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: 4 January 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 w/statement, dated 110101-02; ERB, dated 101013, 101012, 100719; ARBA CSA letter, dated 110628; Congressional documents, dated 110620. 







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: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
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 AR20110012128
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages