Application Receipt Date: 071204	

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: 050110 (060111)
Discharge Received:     Date: 060214   
Chapter: 9    AR: 635-200
Reason: Drug Rehabilitation Failure
RE:     SPD: JPC
Unit/Location: D Co, 2-12 IN, Fort Carson, CO  

Time Lost: AWOL for 2 days (051116-051117), mode of return unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  760603  
Current ENL Date: 040204    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  Item 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214, date entered active duty this period is incorrect, should read 040204, see enlistment contract.
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 00 Mos, 09 Days ?????
Total Service:  02  Yrs, 00 Mos, 09 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: NIF   EDU: 14 Years   Overseas: Korea/Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (040808-050730)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted documents which shows that he completed the tier-1, 5 week residential substance abuse treatment track and the PTSD treatment program, 17 February 2006 and 5 April 2006 respectively. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 30 November 2005, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 10 January 2005 (060111), 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, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 24 January 2006, 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service; to include his combat service, the unit commander's recommendation for an honorable characterization of service,  and the Standard Form 600 (Rev.), which shows the applicant was diagnosed with chronic post traumatic stress disorder on (051219), mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service 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: 6 February 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 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 and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board determined that the length and quality of the applicant’s service; to include his combat service, and the circumstances surrounding his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  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: 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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 7 February 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070017787

Applicant Name:     
______________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 5 pages