Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006703
Original file (AR20060006703.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
Application Receipt Date: 060508	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents.

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: 911101
Discharge Received:     Date: 911113   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct/Abuse of Illegal Drugs
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: 92D Chemical Company, APO AE 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 911031/Wrongful use of marijuana/hashish/FG

911101/Bar to Reenlistment was imposed on the applicant for the wrongful use of marijuana/hashish between on or about 910811 and 910911/CG

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  611108  
Current ENL Date: 900213    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 01Days ?????
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 09Mos, 01Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 54B10 (Chemical Operations Specialist)   GT: 120   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany   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 1 November 1991, 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 (testing positive on a random urinalysis for THC), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived his rights 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 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, 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.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 070228              
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     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.















Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, 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: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 070307
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060006703

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005834

    Original file (AR20080005834.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013366

    Original file (AR20070013366.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 27 May 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007517

    Original file (AR20080007517.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007475

    Original file (AR20060007475.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 November 1991, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. While the applicant's misconduct is not condone, his overall length and quality of service to include combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090015376

    Original file (AR20090015376.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 May 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for his inability to follow military rules and regulations with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019859

    Original file (AR20080019859.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013373

    Original file (AR20080013373.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 March 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070012951

    Original file (AR20070012951.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 2 May 2006, 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 AWOL x 2 (051006-051103 and 051104-060215), with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012570

    Original file (AR20090012570.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Does not believe that his case was reviewed properly, because if it was he would still be an Army Officer based on issues 1-5. On 5 July 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008124

    Original file (AR20080008124.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant declined legal counsel , voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 25 April 1997, the separation...