Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/21	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: 030922
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040107   Chapter: 14-12c(2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: A Company, 172nd Support Battalion, Fort Wainwright, AK. 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030903, Wrongfully used cocaine between on or about 030707-030714; reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $579.00 pay per month for 2 months; 1 month suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 040301; extra duty and restriction for 45 days; (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 010420    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 8 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 55B10 Ammunition Spec   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska (011025-040107)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states in his issue that he is currently enrolled in a school through the Vocational Rehabilitation Program.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 22 September 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he tested positive for cocaine, 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 intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 December 2003, the separation authority reviewed the disability case file and indicated that he did not find that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct and found no other circumstances to warrant disability processing instead of administrative separation from the Army.  Further, the separation approving 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 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, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review 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, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier.  The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue indicating that he was being processed to be discharged through a medical board and was approved; however, Army Regulation 635-200, Section VI, paragraph 1-33b; disposition through medical channels indicate that when the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander or attending medical officer determines that a Soldier being processed for administrative separation under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct does not meet the medical fitness standards for retention, he will refer the Soldier to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). However, the administrative separation proceedings will continue, but final action by the General Court-martial Convening Authority (i.e., separation authority) will not be taken, pending the results of the MEB.  Further, the evidence of record shows that the GCMCA reviewed the disability case file and indicated that he did not find that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct and found no other circumstances to warrant disability processing instead of administrative separation from the Army, and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of chapter 14-12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct.  Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  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: 9 October 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 AR20090003836
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages