Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090004594
Original file (AR20090004594.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 in lieu of 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: 070208
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070302   Chapter: 14-12C      AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: C Battery, 3-319th AFAR, Ft Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: These dates are annotated on the DD Form 214 (070209-070223), but no other documents in the record mentions time lost, ie, AWOL, confinement (military or civilian).

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: 040715    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  19 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 07Mos, 03Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 07Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B/Cannon Crewmember   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Afghanistan (050415-060331)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ACM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NATO MDL

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Denver, CO
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he has been employed as a security guard in NC and manage to find part time work most weeks in Colorado.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on  8 February 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, for commission of s serious offense, due to a positive urinalysis for cocaine on 070116, 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 and waived his rights to an administrative separation board, 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.  On 23 February 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service to include his combat service surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.”  An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 November 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 3    No change 2
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 AR20090004594
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009894

    Original file (AR20090009894.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2) by reason of misconduct, 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009884

    Original file (AR20090009884.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 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 | CY2008 | AR20080004267

    Original file (AR20080004267.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 990107 Discharge Received: Date: 990219 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: 551st Trans. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in her own behalf. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015434

    Original file (AR20060015434.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 9 February 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—conviction by civil court (failing to be at his appointed place of duty X 5, 2-5 August 2004, 13 August 2004, and 28 July 2004; and three DUI offenses 5 June 2004, 4 September 2004, and 19 November 2004), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001675

    Original file (AR20090001675.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 9 September 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and 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: No Change Other:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090016817

    Original file (AR20090016817.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. However, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of commission of a serious offense, which the separation code is "JKQ." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090015316

    Original file (AR20090015316.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 15 August 2006, 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. On 14 November 2006, again the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006302

    Original file (AR20090006302.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. 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 | CY2010 | AR20100019447

    Original file (AR20100019447.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Character reference letters, AAM award, certificate of promotion to Specialist.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019123

    Original file (AR20090019123.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to...