Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011666
Original file (AR20060011666.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 060815	

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: 960118
Discharge Received:     Date: 960202   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: Regimental Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd ACR, Fort Bliss, TX 79916 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 951211-Wrongfully use cocaine, on or between (951005) and (951106), (Field Grade).  

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  730807  
Current ENL Date: 920505    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 08 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 08 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: None
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96B10 Intelligence Analyst   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, C/Ach
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 18 January 1996, 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/abuse of illegal drugs (received a Field Grade Article 15 for the use of cocaine), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant  waived consulting with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 senior commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an  under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 30 January 1996, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length of the applicant's service; and the time that has elapsed since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.    

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 22 August 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 3    No change 2   - 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, 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: 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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON				DATE: 11 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011666

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008183

    Original file (AR20060008183.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a honorable discharge. 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. Certification Signature...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016214

    Original file (AR20060016214.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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 based on the overall...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011715

    Original file (AR20060011715.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015491

    Original file (AR20060015491.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in his own behalf. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant's characterization of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015176

    Original file (AR20060015176.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 14 February 2005, 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 wrongfully using marijuana (041018-041218), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. While the applicant's...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009855

    Original file (AR20060009855.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 17 June 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (he received a Company and a Field Grade Article 15), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013016

    Original file (AR20070013016.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 14 July 2005, 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 the wrongful use of cocaine (050411-050418), with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. Accordingly, the analyst...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011289

    Original file (AR20070011289.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 December 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- drug abuse—for distributing oxycodone (060701-060831), with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016788

    Original file (AR20060016788.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst determined that the circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge as established by his two immediate commanders' recommendations for retention mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013034

    Original file (AR20060013034.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 found that the applicant's length of service to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Certification Signature and...