Application Receipt Date: 070427	

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: 040122
Discharge Received:     Date: 040319   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030908/Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about (030803 and 030820)/(Field Grade)

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040122/Summary Court Martial/Wrongful use of marijuana X 2, between on or about (030905 and 030924) and (031001 and 031014), wrongful possession of at lease .11 grams of marijuana on or about (030924), and introduction of marijuana onto a installation used by the Armed Forces on or about (030905).  He was sentence to forfeiture of $796.00 per month for one month, and confinement for 30 days.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  801120  
Current ENL Date: 020213    Current ENL Term: 03 Years       
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 01Mos, 07Days      
Total Service:  04 Yrs, 01Mos, 29Days      
Previous Discharges: RA-000121-020212/HD
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 (Unit Supply Specialist)   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030104-030712)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AFEM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that from November 2004 to December 2006 he worked overseas in Iraq doing the same job he did in the Army as a 92Y, and that he has learned how to function without the use of drugs.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

a.  Facts and Circumstances:
Evidence of record shows that on 22 January 2004, 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, wrongful possession of marijuana, and wrongfully introduced illegal drugs onto a military installation), with an under other then honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board per his offer to plead guilty (pretrial agreement), dated 9 January 2004, and did not submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate and senior intermediate commander's reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 6 February 2004, 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.

The applicant has a CID Report of Investigation dated 31 October 2003, 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, and the issues 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 or general 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.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 5 November 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: 

Witnesses/Observers: 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted four additional document in support of his personal appearance hearing.




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, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board found that the applicant's combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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.















Case report reviewed and verified by: 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: 9 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder