Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states, "my discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in the 4 yrs and 10 months of service with no other adverse action".

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060507   Chapter: 8-26e(2)a       AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: NA   Unit/Location: Battery B, 1/201st FA, Morgantown, WV 

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 010623    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	5 Yrs, 1Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 1Mos, 16Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	OADT 020508-020904/HD
                                       OADT 031218-050323/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFRM, ARCOM, ASR, CBTSPBCA, AGCM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Morgantown, WV
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army National Guard of the State of West Virginia.  The evidence indicates that on 13 September 2006, Joint Forces Headquarters - WV, Adjutant General's Department, 1703 Coonskin Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, discharged the applicant with a general under other conditions discharge.  The record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26e(2)a, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct – illegal use of drugs, with a characterization of service of general under other conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3."

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-78 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army Reserve National Guard.  Paragraph 8-26q (3) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the State of West Virginia Army National Guard and a Reserve of the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), which indicates that the applicant was unavailable for signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the service and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-26, NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, 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 contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 15 July 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080015082
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages