Application Receipt Date: 060918	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's 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: 001015
Discharge Received:     Date: 010212   
Chapter: 7    AR: 135-178
Reason: Misconduct-Abuse Of Illegal Drugs
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: 414th Military Police Company, Joplin, MO 68401 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  791227  
Current ENL Date: 980202    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 00 Mos, 11 Days The analyst used the enlistment contract and discharge order to determine the period of service under review and total service.   
Previous Discharges: ADT-980227-980725/NA
                                         (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 95B10 Military Police   GT: 112   EDU: NIF   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NIF
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 15 0ctober 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 135-178, Chapter 7, by reason of misconduct—abuse of illegal drugs (on or about 17 January 2000, he participated in a urinalysis screening to determine possible use of illegal drugs.  The results of that test indicated that he abused illegal drugs, namely THC), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration 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 separation authority memorandum waiving  further rehabilitative efforts and directing that the applicant be discharged and the characterization of service is not part of the availble record, and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  On 12 February 2001, DA, HQ, 89th Regional Support Command, Wichita, KS, Orders 01-043-001, discharged the applicant from the United States  Army Reserve, effective date: 12 February 2001.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.  Chapter 7 of this regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following:  minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense (to include abuse of illegal drugs,) and conviction by civil authorities.  The service of a Soldier discharged for reasons indicated in paragraph 7, will normally be characterized as under other than honorable conditions.  If warranted by the Soldier's overall record, a characterization of service of under honorable conditions may be furnished.

      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 and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and recommends that relief be denied in this case.  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.  Therefore, 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: 31 October 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, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length of the applicant's service; and the circumstances surrounding his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  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.  This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E3.   















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: TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis      Date: 9 November 2007                        

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
           ( X  )	Restoration of grade to PFC/E3
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: PFC/E3

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 9 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013353

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages