Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 030313
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030508   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 567th Trans Co, Resolute Provisional Bn, Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 021206, wrongful use of marijuana (020817-020916); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552 pay x 2 months (suspended), and correctional custody for 30 days (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 010710    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 09Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 09Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88H10 Cargo Spec   GT: 113   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Olney, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 March 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for wrongful use of marijuana (020817-020916), driving on a suspended license (021029), failure to report (021203), insubordinate and disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer (021212), 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 commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 24 April 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 31 October 2002.
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report dated 29 October 2002, with additional offenses.
       
       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, 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 military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and document he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," the separation code is "JKQ," and the reentry code is "RE 3."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28, separation code, entered in block 26, and RE Code, entered in block 27 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  Further, 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.  Additionally,  the analyst noted the accomplishments outlined in the documents with the application.  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.   Finally, 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: 18 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 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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090006449
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages