Application Receipt Date: 070302

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See 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: 060426
Discharge Received:     Date: 060520
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, (Serious Offense)
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: 4th Chemical Company 1st Bde STB, APO AP 96224

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 051222-wrongfully use marijuana,
between on or about (051016-051116), (Field Grade).

051110-having received a lawful order from a SGT, did willfully disobey the
same, (051008), disrespectful in language toward a SGT x 2, (051008) and
(050907), (Field Grade).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  830710
Current ENL Date: 041229    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  25 weeks
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 04 Mos, 22 Days      
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 04 Mos, 22 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 74D10 chemical Ops Spec   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea
Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Hopkins, SC 29061
Current Address: PO Box 13
Hopkins SC 29061
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 26 April 2006, 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 (received a Field Grade Article 15 for wrongful use of
marijuana, on or between (051016-051116), and received a Field Grade
Article 15 for failing to obey a lawful order from a NCO and disrespecting
a NCO), 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 10 May 2006, the separation authority
waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be
discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable
conditions.


      The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 9 December 2005,
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,
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 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 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, 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. 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: 11 June 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA

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, voted to deny relief.





















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:


MARY E. SHAW                      DATE: 25 June 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder