Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2012/01/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged because of a positive urinalysis.  He had completed his first enlistment, became a team leader, and was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He suffered from PTSD after the deployment—he had severe anxiety and was going through a tough depression.  After his discharge, he sought VA assistance.  He is in the process of successfully completing a treatment program.  He feels that he did not receive the proper treatment, while he was on active duty.  He made a mistake, and the PTSD, anxiety, and depression got the best of him.  It completely took over his coherent choices in life.  He successfully completed his first contract and reenlisted before his deployment, unaware of what the repercussions were going to be.  He did not know he was going to come home affected by the deployment.  As each day went by, he was in fear; he had nightmares; he woke up shaking his sleep.  He cannot change this but what he can change is to do the best he can in life.  He enrolled a university to obtain a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice so that he can work in the prison system and be a corrections officer.  He has two young boys; ages four and two, who he needs to support after college.  An upgrade of his disharge would help him pursue a career in the field.  He understands his mistakes and he cannot go back in time and change the mistakes he made but he can change the future, so he is asking that by having led Soldiers and being the best Soldier that he can be,that his discharge be considered for an upgrade.

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: Undated
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110714   Chapter: 14-12c(2)    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: 1st Bn, 32nd Inf Regt (Rear) (Detachment), 2d BCT (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Drum, NY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110531, wrongful use of marijuana (110321-110419), reduced to E-1, forfeiture of $733 x 2 months, 45-day extra duty, (FG)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 070613    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  16 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 01 Mos, 02 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 01 Mos, 02 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	NIF
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B (Infantryman)   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Afghanistan (090117-100109)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; AGCM; NDSM; ACM-CS; ASR; OSR; NATO MDL

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments:  He states he is enrolled in a university to obtain a degree in criminal justice.
VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that in an undated memorandum, 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 wrongfully using cocaine (110208) and wrongfully using marijuana (110321-110419), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 9 June 2011, the applicant waived consultation with a legal counsel and indicated that he understood 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On or about 30 June 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The record further shows on file a CID Report No. 0082-11-CID452-40798-5L6, dated 16 March 2011 and CID ROI 0082-11-CID452, and an MP report 00781-2011-MPC552, dated 10 March 2011.

       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 analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not have control over his behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully.  The analyst also noted the applicant's issues about his desire to have better job opportunities and possibly the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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.
       
       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: 9 May 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 18 January 2012; Univ. of Phoenix Agreement, dated 9 January 2012; Medical Treatment Plan, dated 13 January 2012; ERB, dated 14 July 2011.

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 AR20120001716
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages