Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/01	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: 031217
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040105   Chapter: 14-12c(2)      AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: A Co, Operations Group, Fort Irwin, CA  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031204, at Victorville, CA, on or between 1 August 2003 and 30 September 2003, wrongfully used marijuana; having been restricted to the limits of the DFAC, medical and dental facilities, place of worship, place of duty, and the barracks of Fort Irwin, did on or about 25 October 2003, break said restriction; reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $575.00 pay per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days (FG).

030527, at Fort Irwin, CA, failed to be at appointed place of duty, to wit: attend the BOSS trip to Venice Beach or be at place of duty; 14 days restriction and extra duty (CG).

020617, at Fort Irwin, CA, on or about 7 June 2002, have an unauthorized weapon in his posession; 10 days restriction and extra duty (CG).



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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 030124    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 11Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 04Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 000825-030123/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10/Cavalry Scout   GT: 87   EDU: HS   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Hagerstown, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant.




VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 December 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for illegal drug use, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived his right to consult with 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 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.  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 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.  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 service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  

             Furthermore, 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.  Additionally, the analyst discovered that the date on the memoradum from the separation authority preceded the date on the initiation of separation letter from the applicant's unit commander.  Notwithstanding this, the Board concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on the date of the separation authority's approval document.  Department of Defense Directive 1332.28 stipulates that a discharge is proper unless the error was a prejudicial error.  Barring evidence to the contrary, 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 had a record of misconduct and substandard performance of duty with few significant favorable entries in the record.  The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.

             In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.  











VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 28 April 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA






Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090011967
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages