Application Receipt Date: 060803	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293

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: 060124
Discharge Received:     Date: 060213   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: 3rd Brigade Combat Team, (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Carson, CO  80913 

Time Lost: AWOL x 3, for a total of 86 days from (050515-050520), (050914-051122), and (060114-060117). 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050603, AWOL, from (15 May 2005 to 20 May 2005), (Company Grade)

2nd Article 15, 060110, Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about (24 October 2005 and 23 November 2005), (Field Grade)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  810223  
Current ENL Date: 050113    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  21 Weeks/with a Moral Waiver
Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 10 Mos, 13 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, item 12c is incorrect; should be: 10 Months and 13 Days.  The applicant has a period of AWOL that is not shown on his DD Form 214, item 29 (Time Lost).  See Article 15.  
Total Service:  0 Yrs, 10 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10 Cavalry Scout   GT: ?????   EDU: 14 Years   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, 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 24 January 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—commission of a serious offense (AWOL from 14 Sep 05 until 22 Nov 05, 14 Jan 05 until 17 Jan 05, and for testing positive for marijuana (THC) on 23 Nov 05), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board 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 intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 19 February 2006, 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. 

      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, 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, 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 or general 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.  Furthermore, the analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 1 August 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




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 0    No change 5   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.  
























Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: N/A
Other: N/A
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: N/A

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 17 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011540

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages