Application Receipt Date: 060815	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicnat states, in effect, that I believe that I was unfairly treated at the time of my discharge.  I was punished while other soldiers were not.  I believe that this occured because I was pregnant and was planning on ending my service.  I was punished for an incident that occured many months prior to my pregnancy.  I took a loss of two pay grades, loss of pay, and did extra duty in the rain and snow for 45 days.  I feel that this punishment for my actions should have been enough. I was always a good soldier, I recieved numerous awards because of this.  I entered the Army at the age of 18, volunteered to deploy to Bosnia on behalf of my unit and re-enlisted upon my arrival there.  I am now furthering my education and entering nursing school.  I currently have completed over 70 college units and maintain a G.P.A of 3.9.,  I have made the deans list every semester.  I take full responsiblity for my actions in the past, but I am a different person now and my judgement reflects that.  I am appealing my discharge of "Under Honorable Conditions," "Misconduct" because I do not feel that my entire service to the Army is justly reflected.  I am proud to have served in the United States Army, I know that my service made me a better person and instilled a sense of displine that guides me through all of lifes challenges.  I hope that my appeal will be considered and my military duty will be something that I can nothing but proud of.  I seek a clean slat and a record free of imature mistakes. Thank you for your consideration.  

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: 030103
Discharge Received:     Date: 030125   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: C Company, 501st Forward Support Battalion, APO, AE  09074 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 021202, Dereliction of duty in that you should have known of your duties to provide a non-adulterated urine sample for a company urinalysis for C Company, 501st FSB, (020307), with intent to deceive, made to a SA, an official statement, which was false (020624), and wrongfully used marijuana (020301), (Field Grade)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  810726  
Current ENL Date: 000927    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 3Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-990907-000926/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91E10 Dental Specialist   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Macedonia (000914-001208)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), NDSM, AFEM, ASR, NATOM, KCM
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 3 January 2003, 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 (you received a Field Grade Article 15 for failing to provide a non-adulterated urine sample, making a false official statement, and wrongfully using marijuana.  Your actions demonstrate that further attempts to rehabilitate you would most likely be unsuccessful.), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 6 January 2003, 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, 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 she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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.  Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  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: 15 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 1    No change 4   - 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: 


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

Case Number AR20060011676

Applicant Name:  Mrs.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 6 pages