Application Receipt Date: 060628	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 040503
Discharge Received:     Date: 040602   
Chapter: 9    AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure
RE:     SPD: JPD
Unit/Location: HHO Company, 102nd Military Intelligence Battalion, APO AP 96257 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031224-disrespectful in deportment toward a CSM, (031202), (Company Grade).

The suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $200.00 imposed on 031224, was vacated on (040119), for curfew violation. 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  790612  
Current ENL Date: 980226    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 05  Yrs, 09 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Total Service:  05  Yrs, 09 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52D10 Power Generation Equipment Repairer   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea/Bosnia Herzegovina   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NM (Yugoslavia)
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 the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 3 May 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  On 21 May 2004, the separation authority 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 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted use information is used in the discharge process.
      
      
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After careful examination of all the applicant's military records for the period of enlistment under review and the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case.  The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure.  The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of this Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Finally, 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.  The analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 30 May 2007              
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 inequitable.  The Board does not condone the applicant's misconduct; however, found that the overall length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries 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.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, voted not to change it.  

















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: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 12 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060009249

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages