Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 090417	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states that his discharge is inequitable because it is based on one isolated incident in 64 months of service with no other adverse action.  

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: 070322
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070402   Chapter: 9      AR: 635-200
Reason: Drug Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPC   Unit/Location: A Co, 2nd Bn, 22nd Infantry Regt, Fort Drum, NY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030916    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 06Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 010907-030915/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B20/Infantryman   GT: 93   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: Afghanistan, Iraq   Combat: Iraq (050807-060801), Afghanistan (030814-040801)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3), AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, CIB

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












VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 22 January 2007, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 15 March 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure, with a honorable 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a honorable discharge.  On 26 March 2007, the separation authority directed that the applicant be 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 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, and the issue 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 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control 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 applicant 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 diagnosis of PTSD which the applicant mentions in his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted, the applicant fully understood the difference between right and wrong when he committed the misconduct that caused the unit commander to initiate the separation action.  Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that his discharge was based on a single incident.  However, even if this were a single incident, the discrediting entry would constitute a departure from the standards of conduct expected of a noncommissioned officer  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 had several incidents of misconduct that did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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: 8 July 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 2    No change 3
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 AR20090007960
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages