Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 07/07/10
Prior Review Prior Review Date: None
I. Applicant Request
Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.
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: 021230
Discharge Received: Date: 030124
Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.
RE: SPD: JPD
Unit/Location: 1st BN, 377th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort Bragg, NC
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Year/Month: 8005
HOR City, State: Marietta, OH
Current ENL Date: 000825 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 04Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service: 04 Yrs, 07Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: AR-980625-000824/HD
Highest Grade: E4`
Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 82C Field Artillery Surveyor GT: 91 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM x2, AGCM, NDSM, HSM, ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: Not Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record indicates that on 17 December 2002, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 30 December 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure and domestic violence, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant waived 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. On 2 January 2002, the separation authority 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 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicants overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted use information is used in the discharge process.
c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:
After a careful review of all the applicants military records, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. As a result of the applicants actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems. Furthermore, at the time of the discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. An RE code of 4 can not be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. Therefore, the analyst determines that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing
Type of Hearing: Date: 16 July 2008
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 1 No change 4 - Character
Change 0 No change 5 - Reason
(Board member names available upon request)
IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
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: ?????
XI. Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:
MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board
Official:
CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 16 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20070009624
______________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 5 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013547
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060000135C080324
On 14 November 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009418
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. On 15 July 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 11 June...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016562
The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 4 December 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070003863aC071121
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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 intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006381
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070307 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009249
Current ENL Service: 05 Yrs, 09 Mos, 07 Days ????? Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. On 21 May 2004, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011570
Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 18 Days Item 12c on DD Form 214, net active service this period is incorrect, should read 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 18 Days. The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009416
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 22 Days ????? 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.
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015221
The separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.????? Certification Signature and...