Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/13	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: 080402
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080520   Chapter: 9      AR: 635-200
Reason: Drug Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPC   Unit/Location: HHT, 11th ACR, Fort Irwin, CA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080222, with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to a SSG (080124), in block 4 on the DA Form 2627 (Record Of Proceeding Under Article 15, UCMJ), punishment imposed is not annotated (CG).

080108, failure to report (071107), the continuation sheet is not part of the available record; reduction to E-1 (suspended), forfeiture of $200, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

080131, suspension of punishment of reduction to E-1 was vacated for new offense of failure to report (080120).


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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 070227    Current ENL Term: 4 Years   20 Weeks/with an approved moral waiver (070210)
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 10Mos, 24Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 11Mos, 09Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-070212-070226/NA
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42A Human Resources Spec   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Center Valley, PA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 20 February 2008, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 2 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation failure/ASAP failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  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 29 April 2008, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The analyst noted that on the applicant's DD Form 214 block 27, reentry eligibility (RE) code reads "3," however, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitaion failure, which according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Codes Cross-Reference Table, requires an reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4."  
       

       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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating 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 and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, however, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  Further, 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.  Finally, the analyst noted the accomplishments outlined with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service, reason for discharge, and the reentry eligibility (RE) code 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: 22 May 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 0    No change 5
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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012889
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages