Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one incident.  My entire career, 17 years, 5 months and 26 days were not taken into account concerning my discharge characterization.  The whole person was not taken into account as part of the discharge proceedings.  I was not offered any type of rehabilitation because of the concern that it would take me closer to the 18 year mark."

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: 960417
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960719   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HQ USATC, Fort Jackson, SC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960410, Wrongful use of cocaine between (960208 and 960213), reduction to E5 and forfeiture of $840.00 pay per month for two months, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  34
Current ENL Date: 930701    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		17 Yrs, 07Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-781128-790123/NA
                                       RA-790124-810722/HD
                                       RA-810723-860407/HD
                                       RA-860408-891220/HD
                                       RA-891221-920129/HD
                                       RA-920130-930630/HD
Highest Grade: E6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71D20/Legal Specialist/74C20/Rec Telecomm Cen Op   GT: 117   EDU: 2 Yrs College   Overseas: Germany, Korea, Southwest Asia   Combat: Saudi Arabia (900830-910326).
Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-4, AAM-2, AGCM-5, NDSM, SWASM-(w-2 BSS), NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-4, KLM-(SA), KLM-(K).

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that since being discharge from the Army she has graduated from the University of South Carolina with a Master's degree in Social Work, and is currently working as a Social Worker. 


VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 12 April 1996, 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—commission of a serious offense for the wrongful use of cocaine between (960208 and 960213), with an 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, requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statements in her 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 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 7 May 1996, the separation authority referred the applicant's separation case to a administrative separation board to determine whether the applicant should be separated from the Army IAW procedures set forth in AR 635-200.
       
       On 19 June 1996, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  
       
       On 3 July 1996, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and submitted a conditional waiver, voluntarily waiving consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions.  The applicant did not submit a statement on her own behalf.  The applicant's chain of command recommended approval of the conditional waiver.  
       
       On 9 July 1996, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a CID Report dated 25 March 1996.

       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, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the documents, and the issues she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 special trust and confidence placed in a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  The applicant, as a NCO, 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 the misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that her discharge was based on one incident and that her entire career was not taken into account when considering her discharge characterization.  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.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that 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. 
       
       Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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 analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.
       
       In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 7 July 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 1    No change 4
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



































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 AR20090013094
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages