Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 070426
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070521   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: A Co, 626th BSB,  Ft Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061226, wrongfully used THC (060815-060914), reduced to E3, forfeiture of $846 pay per month for two months, 45 days extra duty and 45 days restrictions (FG).

051025, wrongfully used THC (050614), reduced to E3, forfeiture of $773 pay for one month, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 051124 (FG).

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): Summary CM: 070327, FTR on or about 22-26 December 2006 and wrongfully used THC between 15 November -15 December 2006, reduced to E1, forfeiture of $1,152 for one month, confinement for 30 days.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 030522    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	4 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F/Petroleum Supply SP   GT: 110   EDU: 1 yr College   Overseas: Korea & SWA   Combat: Iraq (050921-060918)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAMx3, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Portsmouth, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 26 April 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (drug abuse)  in that he failed to repair from 061222-061226, tested positive for THC on 050714, 060914 and 061215; he received two field grade Article 15s on (051025 and 061221) and, was found guilty at a Summary Court Martial on 070323, with an under other than 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 contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority disapproved the conditional waiver on 070501 and the applicant was notified and was given seven days to respond in writing.  There is not record of his response and the analyst presumed government regularity.  By failing to respond, the former soldier waived his rights to an administrative separation board.  On 16 May 2007, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.  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 service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and 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 and determined that the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 23 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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090004105
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages