Application Receipt Date: 060817	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 020329   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: B Troop, 1st Squadron, 10th US Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Hood, TX 76544 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 001020/Wrongful use of marijuana/(Field Grade).

010226/Vacation of Suspension for Article 15 received on (001020), (Forfeiture of $563.00 pay per month for two months), for the offense of wrongfully endeavor to alter the result of a urinalysis test by substituting toilet water in place of his urine sample, on or about (010202).

2nd Article 15/010725/Wrongful use of cocaine on or between (010103 and 010202), drunk while on duty as the staff duty runner on or about (010209), and wrongful endeavor to alter the results of a urinalysis test on or about (010202)/(Field Grade).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  710131  
Current ENL Date: 981021    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 09Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 05Mos, 09Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 (M1 Armor Crewman)   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: 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 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 (wrongful use of marijuana, altering the results of a urinalysis test by substituting toilet water in place of a urine sample, and wrongful use of cocaine), 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 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  
      
      The applicant has a Military Police Report dated 22 February 2001, in his Official Military Personnel File.
      
      

      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, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is 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 discharge.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue, however the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  Furthermore, 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.  Therefore, 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 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, and voted to deny relief.





















Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 29 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011698

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages