Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant provided no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the board. See enclosed DD Form 293 and document 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: 981229
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990305   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKD   Unit/Location: HHC, 1/501st Parachute Inf Reg, Ft. Richardson, AK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 981015, wrongfully used marijuana on or about 980801 and 980901 at or near Ft. Richardson, AK: reduction to E-4; forfeiture of $716.00 of pay per month for two months (suspended); 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:  24
Current ENL Date: 960627    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 8Mos, 8Days ?????
Total Service:  		9 Yrs, 8Mos, 9Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 890627-981008/HD
                                        
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11H1P HV ANTI ARM WPM   GT: 128   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska   Combat: SWA (900911-910427)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOMx2, AAM, AGCMx2, NDSM, SWASM w/3BSS, NCOPD w/2, ASR, KLM-SA, KLM-KG, CIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Lilington, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
             The evidence of record shows that on 29 December 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—testing positive for marijuana during a unit urinalysis, with an general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 5 March 1999 the applicant was 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 document 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 special trust and confidence placed in a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  The applicant, as a NCO, 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 the misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  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.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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.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: 091106         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 AR20090006184
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages