Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080707	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See attached 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: 061130
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070302   Chapter: 14-12C    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: B Co, 101st Bde Troops Bn, 101st Sustainment Bde, 101st Airborne Div (AA), Ft. Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  26
Current ENL Date: 040408    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Total Service:  		10 Yrs, 05 Mos, 22 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA - 960911-990224/HD
                                       RA - 990225-010607/HD
                                       RA - 010608-040407/HD
Highest Grade: E6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68Q  Pharmacy Spec   GT: 121   EDU: 3 yrs college   Overseas: Republic of Korea   Combat: Iraq (050822-060816)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3), AGCM (3), NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM, NCOPDR (2), ASR, OSR (2), EFMB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  El Paso, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 9 November 2006, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12C, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct on or about 13 January 2006—for wrongfully having an inappropriate relationship with another Soldier,  wrongfully distributing some amount of zolpidem (Ambien), a schedule IV controlled substance and, wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant was advised of his rights, 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 an under other than  honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 February 2007, 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.
       The record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 18 April 2006.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation 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, however, a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.   

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the Applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the Applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  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 of the Applicant's service to include the former Soldier’s combat service mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the Applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the Applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.   Additionally, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  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: 29 April 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the Applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service and, as a result, it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.



  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080011020
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages