Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/15	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: 081016
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 081122   Chapter: 9      AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPD   Unit/Location: C Co, 3-2nd Aviation Regmt, APO AP 96271  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080908, failure to report x 2 (080829) and (080909-080910), with intent to deceive, make a false official statement to a 1SG (080909-080910); reduction to E-4, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (FG). 

080723, failure to obey a lawful general order by wrongfully drinking to the extent that his blood alcohol content exceeded .10 (080615), and drunk on duty (080615); reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $1,023 pay x 1 month (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, 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:  28
Current ENL Date: 030304    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	05 Yrs, 08Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 08Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 15T10 UH-60 Helicopter Repairer   GT: 113   EDU: 4 Years College    Overseas: Korea/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (041109-050310) and (051108-051201)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 3 October 2008, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ASAP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 16 October 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure for alcohol rehabilitation failure 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.  
       
       The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 17 November 2008, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, 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 Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) 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 Soldier 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.
       
       The applicant contends he started drinking heavily due to the separation from his family and that he did not receive the help he needed.  The analyst noted that the applicant was offered assistance and counseling through his enrollment in the ASAP, and he did not respond to this assistance when it was offered.  As such this issue is without merit.
       Further, the evidence of record shows that the command also attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts also.
       
       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. 
       
       The applicant is to be commended for his effort and the accomplishment outlined in the application since separation from active duty; however, this accomplishment does not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.
       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.
       
       Therefore, 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: 24 March 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 1    No change 4
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 AR20090008587
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages