Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant 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?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 050516
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050915   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: 68th Med Co, APO AE 09354 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050402, wrongful use of marijuana between (050219-050321), reduction to E-4, (Not In File).

050607, the punishment of reduction to E-4 was set aside on the basis that the punishment was not authorized in accordance with AR 27-10, table 3-1.


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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  25
Current ENL Date: Reenl/031030    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  The reenlistment contract is not part of the available record nor is it in IPERMS; however, the information was extracted from the DD Form 214 item 18, remarks.
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 10Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 10Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-001017-031029/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F20 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii/Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (050314-050701)
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR 

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 16 May 2005, 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 wrongful use of marijuana, and recommended that the applicant be retained in the U.S. Army.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended that the applicant be retained in the Army.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 June 2005, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and dcuments she 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 NCO.  The applicant, as a NCO, 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 her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Finally, at the time of discharge 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 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: 10 February 2009         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 1    No change 4
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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080006297
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages