Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 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: 070523
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070619   Chapter: 14-12c(2)    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: Co E, 703rd BSB, Ft Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL 21 days (070331-070420), surrendered and military confinement 30 days for a total time lost of 51 days.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070426, wrongful use of cocaine and AWOL (070331-070420); reduction to E1, forfeiture of $867 pay for one month and confinement for 30 days (SUMM)

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 060817    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 10Mos, 03Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 03Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 040317-051130/HD
                                       RA 051201-060816/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63A10 Abrams Tank Syst Mnt   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Norfolk, NY
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 May 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct commission of serious offense for a conviction in a summary court martial for using cocaine and being AWOL (070331-070420), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 Army 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 1 June 2007, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and be reduced to the lowest grade.

       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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, 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 the former Soldier’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of 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 and determined that the separation authority directed the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and be reduced to the lowest grade.  The analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct 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.
       The analyst noted that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the DD Form 214, block 4a grade/rate/rank as SPC and block 27, Reentry Code, as RE 3. The analyst recommends to the board to make an administrative correction to block 4a to read E1 and block 27, to read, paragraph "4”.
       Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's grade/rate/rank and reentry eligibility (RE) code, the analyst found 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: 10 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.  

The Board noted that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the DD Form 214, block 4a 
grade/rate/rank as SPC and block 27, Reentry Code, as RE 3. The Board directed ARBA St. Louis to 
make an administrative correction to block 4a to read E1 and block 27, to read, RE "4”.
        
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: Change blcok 4a to E1										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090009228
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages