Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents 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: 050920
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060110   Chapter: 9    AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPD   Unit/Location: Rear Det, 3-29 FA Bn, Fort Carson, CO 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041015, failure to report (041001), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $348 (suspended), 14 days extra duty and restriction (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 040526    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 07Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 09Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 020404-040525/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14R10/Bradley Linebreaker Crewmember   GT: 98   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kuwait, Iraq   Combat: Iraq (030409-040408)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, GCM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fairbanks, AK
Post Service Accomplishments: Has been working with a VA Counselor for last two years.  He also states he has been doing the Living History with the high school, speaking about Iraq.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 20 September 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, his continued use of alcohol rendered him a failure, and further efforts to rehabilitate him were not practical, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 22 September 2005, 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 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 19 October 2005, 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, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found several 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 applicant’s actions, 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.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was 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 tour in Iraq, and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  The analyst noted that the applicant earned an ARCOM while in the rank of E-4/SPC, this achievement is difficult to attain at such a junior grade and demonstrates the applicant was an excellent soldier.   The applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. In view of the foregoing, 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: 13 February 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 2    No change 3
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         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 AR20080003730
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages