Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/12	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: 010621
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010904   Chapter: 14-12c(2)    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: C Co, 2-87 IN Bn, Fort Drum, NY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010430, wrongful use of marijuana (010201-010301), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $521 x 2, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 980309    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 05Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Bosnia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NM, AFEM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Salem, UT
Post Service Accomplishments: Graduated from college with a BS, Information Technology (April 2008), and received an Associate Degree in Network Administration, Utah Valley University.  Documentation is enclosed.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 June 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for testing positive for marijuana on three separate occasions (010301, 010416, 010522), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 21 June 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions 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 commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 9 August 2001, the separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver request and directed that an Administrative Separation Board be convened.  On 21 August 2001, the applicant once again consulted with legal counsel and unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, he did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 24 August 2001, 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.

       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 entire 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 is now too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service to include the former soldier’s deployment and service in the Balkans and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. The record indicates that the applicant’s misconduct took place over a three month period and other than by these incidents the record is free of any other misconduct, thus the preponderance of his service was of good quality.  In view of the foregoing, 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.  This action does not entail restoration of grade.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 May 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his deployment to the Balkans. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012851
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages