Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by 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: 050208
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050223   Chapter: 14-12c     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 2d Squadron, Fort Carson, Colorado 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040812, wrongfully use marijuana (040606-040706); reduction to E1; forfeiture of $597.00 pay for  2 months, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (050209); extra duty for 45 days; restricted to the limits of Fort Carson, CO for 45 days (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 020312    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 11Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 11Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None

Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10/Motor Transport Operator   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kuwait, Iraq   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (20030328-20040328)(Inclusive) 
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, OS Svc Bar (2), ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: 
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he is currently receiving treatment from the VA for medical issues and holds a full time job with an optical company.  Applicant further states his life has turned around due to proper medical treatment.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 04 February 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct, for commission of a serious offense for using marijuana (040606-040706), with a recommendation of general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, and did not 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 08 February 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service 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 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 and documents 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. Further, the analyst noted the applicant's issues; however,  the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with 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.   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: 9 December 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
								         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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010015
______________________________________________________________________________




Page 3 of 3 pages