Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070712	

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: 990402
Discharge Received:     Date: 990409   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKF
Unit/Location: B Battery, 62d Eng, 2d Battalion, 18th Field Artillery, Fort Sill, OK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990323, wrongfully use marijuana (981229-990129), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $479 x 2 (suspended), to be remitted if not vacated before 22 September 1999, 45 days extra duty, 45 days restriction. (FG)

990203, failure to report, reduction to E-2, forefeiture of $251 (both suspended), to be remitted if not vacated before 3 May 1999, 14 days extra duty. (CG) (The DA Form 2627 - Continuation Sheet is not in the file.) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7803  
HOR City, State: Huntsville, AL
Current ENL Date: 961002    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 08Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 06Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10/Light WVeh Mech   GT: NIF   EDU: GED    Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has been working for same employer for past 6.5 years (supporting documentation not provided).

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 2 April 1999, 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 for (testing positive for marijuana on 29 January 1999 which resulted in a Field Grade Article 15 and for failure to report to several formations, which resulted in a Battery Grade Article 15), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant declined consultation 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 2 April 1999, 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, 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, however, a general 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 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, the analyst noted the applicant's issues and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 11 July 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None




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.

								        
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: 11 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009651
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages