Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents (5) 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: 070406/Unit commander recommended retention
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070419   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: D Company, 10th Brigade Support Battalion, Fort Drum, NY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070323, Wrongfully used cocaine between on or about 070218-070221; (FG). The punishment imposed for the offense is not part of the available record; however, it appears that the applicant was reduced to Private (E-1); because at the time of his initiation of separation action, he was addressed as a Private (E-1).  

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 040520    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 0 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 0 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52D10 Power Gen Equip Rep   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (050804-060804)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICMDL, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue that, "he is currently enrolled in school and is doing very well."  He submitted a Certificate of Academic Achievement from Monroe Community College and a Letter of Recommendation to take Honor Courses next semester.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 4 April 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he wrongfully used cocaine between on or about 070218-070221; however, the unit commander further indicated that he would recommend that he be retained on active duty.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       The applicant waived 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 that the applicant be retained on active duty.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended that the applicant be retained on active duty.  On 8 April 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and 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 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, but a general discharge 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, the issue and supporting 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 applicant'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 his 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.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue in regard to him applying for jobs, continuing his education with the help of the Montgomery GI Bill, and that his discharge was based on this one event; however, even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers 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.  Having examined all the circumstances, the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       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 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010464
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages