Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of DD Form 293.

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: 041024
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041027   Chapter: 9-2    AR: 635-200
Reason: Drug Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPC   Unit/Location: 235th Signal Co, Fort Gordon, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040727, failure to report x 4 (040715), (040716), (040719), (040720), and drunk on duty (040716); reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $350 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (suspended), (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: 010403    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 06Mos, 25Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 06Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25S10 Satelite Communication System Operator/Maintainer    GT: 114   EDU: 12 Years   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030318-040222)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Maryville, TN
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 7 September 2004, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ASAP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 4 October 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, Paragraph 9-2, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol or other drug rehabilitation failure/ASAP 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, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  On 20 October 2004, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Blotter dated 16 June 2004. 
       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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents 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 Army Substance Abuse 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 applicant’s 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 issues indicating that the mitigating circumstances were overlooked at the time of his discharge and his service connected post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) resulted in his stress related misconduct.  The analyst acknowledges the independent documentation from the (Department of Veterans Affairs) submitted with the application, indicating that the applicant was assigned  a 30% disability rating for his service connected PTSD.  However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed by competent medical authority with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), polysubstance dependence, and a personality disorder (NOS) with borderline, antisocial, narcissistic traits and headaches, which he was being treated for.  Further, the medical authority stated that the applicant meets the criteria for an administrative separation in accordance with (IAW) AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13, if the commander does not plan separation action under another chapter.  Also, the medical authority indicated that the applicant was mentally sound, and able to appreciate any wrongfulness of his conduct and to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, and cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the commander, to include consideration for an administrative separation.  On 17 August 2004, due to the applicant refusing further services and a positive urinalysis test during his enrollment in the ASAP program, the applicant was released from the outpatient counseling program as a rehabilitation failure.  On 4 October 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, Paragraph 2, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol or other drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure, and not because of his diagnosis of PTSD or any other medical condition.  Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Finally, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  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: 30 September 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 1    No change 4
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 AR20090004186
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages