Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080818	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.  The Applicant states " I am now 42 years old and again may have to change careers. I was discharged "Under Honrable Conditions", but the narrative "Misconduct" doesn't match and it seems false. Alot of jobs want "Honrable" and not "General". 
I wanted to get out of the Army under a "Hardship" discharge to not have to deploy to Korea after just geting married, but it didn't work out and I got a Article 15 instead before they let me out. I just found out my wife was pregnant... I was Soldier of the Quarter for the 2nd time and very decorated for an E-4... I thought "why couldn't they just send a single soldier in my stead... my wife was going to be a basket-case alone"  (ex-wife now... I am also a single-parent going on 10 years). Could I please ask for a "Honrable" discharge or General "Hardship"?  The "Misconduct" and Separation Code "JKQ" ("Misconduct of a Serious Type") makes me sound bad.  If it was bad- why did I get "Under Honrable conditions"?   I know it was because I was Soldier of the Quarter and Month several times, Captain of the Color Guard, awarded for my Calibration/ duty skills, and I was well liked so they made sure of the 'under honrable conditions' since the 'hardship' wasn't going to fly. No one expected the "Misconduct" and "JKQ" on my DD214.   These contradict my "Under Honrable Conditions"  (failed pee test... I believe they tricked my into signing A15 because I couldn't have been over the legal Parts-Per-Million, BUT you have to fight it to see your level).  I had been in Mexico and just being with some druggies cost me a "Hardship" discharge that was days from getting signed.
   I have been a Compliance Engineer for Underwriters Laboratories for the past 8 years. A single dad of an awesome daughter. AND I have never been in trouble. Please, help me out on this.
                                  Sam Nickels"

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: 940512
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 940630   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HQ Support Troop, US Army Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, AZ 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940331, wrongfully use cocaine on or about 8 January 1994 and 7 February 1994, a schedule II controlled substance; reduction to E-2; forfeiture of half month pay of $543.60 for 2 months; restriction and extra duty for 45 days (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 911127    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 7Mos, 4Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 7Mos, 4Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 35H10 Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equip Maintenance Support   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad    Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Northville, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has been employed as a compliance engineer for Underwriters Laboratories for the past eight years

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 12 May 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for abuse of illegal drugs, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  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 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former Soldier’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, 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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Therefore, 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: 090527         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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080013295
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages