Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070926	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 950424
Discharge Received:     Date: 950505   
Chapter: 7    AR: 135-178
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: NIF
Unit/Location: 810th QM Company, Kings Mills, OH 

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
Year/Month:  6812  
HOR City, State: Dayton, OH
Current ENL Date: 910817    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 10Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  07 Yrs, 11Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR 86018-870707/NA
                                      RA 870708-910816/ HD
                                      USARC 910817 - (Concurrent Service) 
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52C10/Util Equip Repr   GT: 89   EDU: HS   Overseas: Southwest Asia, Germany   Combat: Saudi Arabia (901226-910426)
Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR, NDSM, SWASM w/2BSS, AAM, ARCOM, AGCM, KLM-SA

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: Heating and Maintenance certification.  Employed in this field for the past 10 years.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 24 April 1995, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 7, para 7-11C1, AR 135-178, by reason of misconduct—for abuse of illegal drugs, 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, unconditionally waived his right to 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 intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 28 June 1995, 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 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.  Chapter 7 of the regulation, in effect at the time, governed separation for acts or patterns of misconduct, including unsatisfactory participation.  The regulation provided that the separation authority could disapprove the commander’s recommendation for discharge for misconduct and direct disposition by other means, disapprove the recommendation for separation for misconduct and direct separation for unsatisfactory performance, or convene a board of officers to determine whether the service member should be separated for misconduct.  When discharged under this provision, Army policy states that the characterization of service will normally be under other than honorable conditions.  The regulation also permitted the characterization of service as under honorable conditions, but did not authorize the characterization of service as honorable.

      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 several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The analyst determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the time that has elapsed since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization be upgraded to fully honorable.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 20 August 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Yes




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 2    No change 3   - 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: 20 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013362
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages