Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/16	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 080909
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090128   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: Delta Company, 782nd Brigade Support Battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080214, Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 071127-071227; wrongfully offer to SGT, a noncommissioned officer the sum of $400.00, as compensation for submiting her urine speciment for her urine specimen during an upcoming company urinalysis on or about 071009;  reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $673.00 pay per month for two months (FG) 

Article 15; 061005, Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 060807 and on or about 060906; forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG) 

Article 15; 060914, Wrongfully used marijuana between on or about 060724 and on or about 060727; reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty 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:  17
Current ENL Date: 050926    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  24 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 3 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, block 12c is incorrect; should be: 3 Years, 4 Months, 3 Days, as annotated above.
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 3 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F1P Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 86   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (070113-080405)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AFCM, GWTSM, NATOM, ASR, OSR, CAB, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
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 9 September 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that she wrongfully used marijuana x 4, between on or about 080716-090730; 071127-071227; 060807-060906; and between on or about 060724-060727, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did not submit a statement in her 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 20 October 2008, the separation approving authority disapproved the applicant's conditional waiver of an administrative separation board and directed that a board of officers be appointed to determined whether the applicant should be separated from the US Army prior to her expiration of current term of service.   
       
       On 12 November 2008, the board met and the applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 11 December 2008, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  
       
       The analyst noted that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) found in the applicant's official record shows that the test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.”  The commander directs an individual test for fitness for duty.  The commander has a suspicion that a Soldier is using a controlled substance, however, does not have probable cause.  The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85.  
       
       However, the evidence of record contains several sworn statements that indicate the applicant had wrongfully used cocaine.  This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis.  Further, the evidence of record shows that the positive urinalysis marked CO was received in evidence as a government exhibit for identification and the defense did not object during an administrative separation board hearing.  This substantiate that the unit commander had probable cause to direct the urinalysis.  
       
       Additionally, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, who would have informed her if the Limited Use Policy applied.  In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for “Probable Cause” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.”  The analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case.  The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

       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, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  

The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier.  

The applicant, as a Soldier, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 

The analyst noted the applicant's issue that as a young Soldier she was impressionable and now wants to better her future and her family; however, the evidence of record shows that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  

Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 12 April 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 AR20090010635
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages