Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/16	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states that his characterization after 19 years of service should be with an outstanding rating.  He provides a supporting document for the Board's consideration (DA Form 1574, Board Report and Proceeding).

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: 010127
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010724   Chapter: 7-11c(1)    AR: 135-178
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: HHD, 468th Chemical Bn, Little Rock, AK 

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:  38
Current ENL Date: 980111    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 06Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  		18 Yrs, 02Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 830426-911125/NA
                                        IADT 830510-831027/HD
                                        USAR 911126-980110/NA
Highest Grade: E-7		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31W40/Wire Systems Supervisor   GT: 83   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Egypt   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM-3, ARCAM-3, NDSM, AFRM, NCOPDR, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Little Rock, AK
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 27 January 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of paragraph 7-11c(1), AR 135-178, by reason of misconduct—for wrongful use of cocaine (001117), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 11 February 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant did not submit a statement on 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 11 May 2001, the applicant was notified via certified mail to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 18 June 2001, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  On 18 July 2001, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve.  Chapter 12 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, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as the former Soldier’s record of misconduct.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the discharge, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the overall length and quality of the applicant's service mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record.  The analyst noted that the applicant served in the USAR for over 18 years, achieved the rank of SFC/E-7 and earned three AAMs and three ARCAMs.  The record is absent of any other incidents of misconduct.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be partially 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 entails restoration of grade to E-7/SFC.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 3 June 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.  The Board determined that the applicant served in the USAR for over 18 years, achieved the rank of SFC and earned many awards.  His record does not contain any other misconduct.  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.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-7/SFC.




 
        
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:  TO: ARBA Support Division-St Louis      Date: 4 June 2009                        

     The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I directs that the ARBA Support Division-St Louis issue a new discharge order to the applicant which reflects the following directed changes:

           ( X  )	Change characterization of discharge to General, Under Honorable Conditions.
           ( X  )	Restoration of grade to SFC/E7
										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: E-7/SFC
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080013334
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages