Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/31	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: 080708
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 081211   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, STB, 7th Sustainment Bde (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080501, wrongful use of marijuana (080229-080331); reduction to E-2 (suspended), forfeiture of $754 pay x 2 months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days (FG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 070419    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 07Mos, 23Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 03Mos, 12Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-010830-041003/HD
                                       RA-041004-070418/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10 Food Service Operations   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia/Korea   Combat: Iraq (030310-040202)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 8 July 2008, 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 (080229-080331), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and intended to 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The senior intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended that the separation action be suspended for a period of six (6) months; however, if separated he recommeded approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 2 October 2008, the separation authority referred the applicant case to the standing administrative separation board.  On 20 October 2008, again the applicant consulted legal counsel and unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board.  On 1 November 2008, 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.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.

       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 documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant’s misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service; to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E4.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant’s issues; however, by his misconduct the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 January 2010         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 is too harsh, and as a result, it is inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
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: E-4
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090007249
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages