Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/02 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: 960903
Discharge Received: Date: 960923 Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure RE: SPD: JPD Unit/Location: C Btry, 5-2 FA Bn, Fort Sill, OK
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 22
Current ENL Date: 940414 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember GT: 87 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Cuba Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFEM, ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: New York, NY
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record indicates that on 19 June 1996, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 3 September 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol /drug rehabilitation failure/ADAPCP 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, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. On 16 September 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
The applicant's record contains two Blotter Reports dated 24 November 1995 and 16 June 1996.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. In view of the foregoing, 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: 29 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 applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20080015304
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080005505
Applicant Name: ????? On 24 March 2004, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. 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: ?????
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019642
Applicant Name: ????? There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080006331
The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, alcohol or other drug rehabilitation failure. Furthermore, according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes, the narrative reason for separation should have been "alcohol rehabilitation failure" and the separation (SPD) code "JPD." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to:...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006381
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070307 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007752
On 25 March 2005, 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/ASAP failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017571
On 11 February 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The narrative...
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100026691
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record indicates that on 1 December 2003, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful rehabilitation; however, in review of the applicants entire service record, the analyst found that this post service accomplishment did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. ...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014746
Applicant Name: ????? On 26 March 1997, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070017724
On 3 January 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; to include his combat service, his post service accomplishments (serving in the State of Oregon Army National Guard as a SSG/E-6; earned Associate Degrees in General Studies and Nursing), and the unit commander's recommendation for a honorable...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013547
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? 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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.