Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080001236
Original file (AR20080001236.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/01/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 010725
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010907   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: Company E, 782nd Main Support Battalion, Division Support Command, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 28310. 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010516, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 4 (010430), (010425), (010424), (010423), extra duty for 14 days (Summarized). 

010626, Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about (010501-010531) reduction to (E-1), forfeiture of $250.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days (FG). 

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 980303    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 107   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 25 July 2001, 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 in that you received a Field Grade Article 15 on (010626) for wrongfully using marijuana and received a Summarized Article 15 on (010516) for four counts of failing to be at your appointed place of duty, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant declined consultation with legal counsel 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 6 August 2001, 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, 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 issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a soldier.  The applicant, as a soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Additionally, at the time of 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.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 29 October 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA 




















VIII.  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. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080001236
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070015223

    Original file (AR20070015223.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 3 October 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. The analyst determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service to include his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004330

    Original file (AR20080004330.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JKK (i.e., misconduct-commission of a serious offense-abuse of illegal drugs). That DD Form 214 indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, Paragraph 12c (2) by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense-abuse of illegal drugs, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070017594

    Original file (AR20070017594.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 March 2002, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for failing to pay a court ordered fine for speeding and, as a result, having a warrant out for his arrest which resulted in his being detained (020227),disrespect to an NCO (020205), failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 8 (010329,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070018784

    Original file (AR20070018784.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 29 August 2006, 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007857

    Original file (AR20080007857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 8 June 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct, in that she received two Article 15s in violation of Articles 91 x 2 and 92 x 5; also, she received several counseling statements for violating policy letters and disobeying lawful orders, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 26...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016551

    Original file (AR20060016551.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 21 September 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060017497

    Original file (AR20060017497.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 April 2001, 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 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. Certification...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016061

    Original file (AR20060016061.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 29 July 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012580

    Original file (AR20090012580.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016452

    Original file (AR20080016452.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 11 February 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and 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 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...