Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/08	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: Applicant requests upgrade to HD.  He states his discharge is inequitable because it was based on a isolated incident in 33 months of service with no other adverse actions.  He wants to be eligible to receive his GI Bill benefits.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: 050404
Discharge Received:     Date: 050516   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: HHC/3-505 IN, Fort Bragg, NC 28310 

Time Lost: 29 days.  Additionally, applicant was confined for 30 days as result of a Summary Court Martia on 050214, these time is not reflected on block 29 of his DD214.  The documents that would indicate when he was confined and released are not in the record.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041216, Field Grade, AWOL 041116-041215, reduced to E-1, $596.00 for two months, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty. 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050214, Summary Court Martial, failure to report, cocaine use, overindulgence of alcohol, disrespect to commissioned officer.  Fined $823.00 for one month and 30 days confinement.  Found guilty on all charges.


Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  810703  
Current ENL Date: 020914    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 05Mos, 04Days ?????
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 05Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10   GT: 93   EDU: HS   Overseas: Iraq   Combat: Iraq (030805-040410)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM
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:
      The evidence of record shows that on 4 April 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense (use of cocaine, 29 days AWOL, disrespect to a commissioned officer, and overindulgence of alcohol), 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.  On 8 April 2005, 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, 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 several incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  His offenses constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  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 analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits (to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill) does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 3 October 2007              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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: Alejandro L. Champin, 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: 5 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060012945

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 5 pages