Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011697
Original file (AR20060011697.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 060817	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document.

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: 960826
Discharge Received:     Date: 960925   
Chapter: 14     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: Northern Europe Veterinary Detachment, APO AE 09175 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960722-Wrongfully use marijuana, on or about (960603), (Field Grade).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  710603  
Current ENL Date: 930429    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  extended 5 months (960410)
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 04 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 04 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91R10 Vetrinary Food Inspection Spec    GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR
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 14 August 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 (tested positive for marijuana on 3 June 1996, and received a Field Grade Article 15), 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 and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 4 September 1996, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and document 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. The analyst noted the applicant’s issue; however, said issue is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 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 5    No change 0   - 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 does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, it determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board found that the length of the applicant's service; his post service accomplishments and the time that has elapsed 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.  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 AR20060011697

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013158

    Original file (AR20060013158.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 12 December 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 (uttered six worthless checks totaling $1700.00 and failed to place sufficient funds in Pentagon Federal Credit Union for payment of such checks between 4 October 1996 and 21 October 1996; disobeyed a lawful command from a noncommissioned...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009426

    Original file (AR20060009426.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 07 Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011712

    Original file (AR20070011712.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 April 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 for being found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial for 18 days AWOL, and two specifications of use of marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 11 April 1996, the separation authority waived...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007416

    Original file (AR20060007416.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 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. 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,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013462

    Original file (AR20060013462.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 28 May 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for having received 2 Article 15’s for failure to report to her place of duty on 6 February 1996 and on 18 June 1996 and for having had numerous negative counseling statements, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011535

    Original file (AR20060011535.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 14 February 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—pattern of misconduct (specifically failure to obey a lawful order, AWOL, and failure to repair on multiple occasions), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011666

    Original file (AR20060011666.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 28 Days ????? 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. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009456

    Original file (AR20070009456.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 October 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—for commission of a serious offense (wrongfully used marijuana between (961212-960716) and damaged another soldier's private property while engaged in a physical altercation, used provoking words and assaulted two unknown males, and were drunk...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014509

    Original file (AR20060014509.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 26 Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 28 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010709

    Original file (AR20070010709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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 and voted to deny relief.