Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/07/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that major points involved with his separation are: he served one year in Iraq and was injured; the Army did not take action to get him out of pain; the incident was his first offense; and he is not a marijuana user.  In his written statement, he states, in effect, that since he was young he wanted to be a part of the U.S. Army.  He loved the brotherhood concept and the fact that you have to live and die for the Soldier to your left and right, putting their well-being before your own.  Basic training in July 2008 was a success for him--he finished in the top five in the company APFT and was offered a ranger contract, which he declined.  He arrived at his first assignment, Fort Hood, in November 2008.  His unit deployed in February 2009.  He met some of his best friends in Iraq--everyone in his platoon had each other's back, no matter the situation.  It was a tough year, but it helped him become a stronger person and a better Soldier.  When his unit returned to Fort Hood, most of his platoon either received reassignment orders or left the Army, and for the next six months they were in transition with new leadership.  During that transition, he felt a pain in his hip during a ruckmarch--he was on a "no PT" profile with very limited duties because of a hip fracture.  His new leadership never did get to know him because of his limited duties.  After seeing four different doctors and attending more than 15 appointments, he finally found a civilian doctor who informed him that he would be getting a hip arthroscopic surgery on 29 March 2011; however, weeks later, he was informed that Tricare has not yet approved the payments and that he may have to sign a promissory note before the surgery.  He has received a lot of scrutiny for his limited abilities.  He felt his entire chain of command turned their back on him.  Their only concerns were what they needed down and had no consideration for his injury.  They made him cancel his appointment because they needed something done and had no concerns for his needs.  In December 2010, he went on block leave; he was relieved to see his family; and to be away from all that he was going through.  He recalls that one night, he had too much to drink and he had blacked out, so he cannot confirm or deny what happened.  Upon returning from leave, he submitted to a unit urinalysis test on 5 January 2011.  He was informed a month later that he failed the drug test and that he would be a civilian in two months, although he was pending surgery.  It upset him to receive such harsh punishment for the first offense against him.  He believes he was being made an example of as there are Soldiers who never deployed and went AWOL for more than a year and were facing far less punishment than him.  He was enrolled in ASAP—the counselor informed him that she did not believe he abused marijuana, but that her main concern was his alcoholic issue.  He agreed with her because since his redeployment from Iraq, he drank heavily to help him sleep at night.  The command then promptly initiated his separation packet and his Article 15 reading.  He met with his CSM for his initial reading and was given 48 hours to decide on his options, take the punishment or trial by a court-martial.  At the final reading, his CSM, company and battalion commanders, first sergeant, and his platoon sergeant and leader were present.  The battalion commander asked him what he thought his punishment should be.  He responded that chaptering him out was already too harsh of a punishment even without the Article 15.  His leadership was then asked and they all recommended the maximum Article 15 punishment, although they were aware of his involuntary separation.  They did not consider that the incident was a first offense against him in his over two years of service—not to mention that not one of them knew that.  His first sergeant had responded to max out the Article 15 “if he failed a drug test, he must use it all the time and he is just now getting caught.”  It upset him to receive 45-day extra duty and restriction from leaving post and the loss of rank from E-4 to E-2, as the following month, his brother would be training in California while his pregnant wife would be home alone and he could not travel two minutes off-post to help her if she needed help.  He asked about going home after his surgery, but was told that he would stay in the barracks.  He informed them that he would not be able to walk or drive for about six weeks.  They responded that they would have someone bring his meals each day.  However, they did not consider who would help take his laundry up a flight of stairs or simple things, such as, who would be near him in case he fell or hurt himself in the shower.  He states that if they did not care about his future, he knew that they would not care about getting him the help and treatment he required to properly recover.  He concludes that at the onset of his letter, he spoke of brotherhood in the Army and now, it did not appear that way.  He never thought that the only person who would help him would be a complete stranger.  In his eyes, it should not have come to this.  He has kept himself and his future as his number one priority.  No matter what happens, he knows he will succeed in his life.  Receiving his GI Bill is his main concern.  He wants to major in Kinesiology and become a high school football coach and help mold young boys into men through the concept of brotherhood.  He expresses his appreciation for the Board to hear his story when no one else would.

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: by an undated memorandum
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110516   Chapter: 14-12c(2)    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: B Co, 2-5 Cav, 1 BCT, 1CD, Fort Hood, TX  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110302, wrongful use of Marijuana (101205-1110105), reduced to E-2, 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:  18
Current ENL Date: 080716    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  16 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 10 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 10 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B (Infantryman)   GT: 112   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (090207-100122)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AAM; NDSM; GWOTSM; ICM-CS; ASR; OSR; CIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Wellington, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 19 April 2011, 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—for wrongful use of Marijuana, a schedule one controlled substance (101205-110105), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 15 April 2011, the applicant waived consultation with a legal counsel and made no provision of whether he understood the impact of the discharge action and did not indicate whether he was submitting 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 28 April 2011, 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. 
       
       Furthermore, 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.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  In addition, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
       
       The applicant's contentions were carefully considered.  However, 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 burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or sufficient evidence.  If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will still be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.
       
       Further, 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.
       
       In view of the foregoing, 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, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears 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: 10 February 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD 149, print date 5 July 2011 with a written statement.

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 AR20110015053
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages