Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 030826
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030919   Chapter: 14-12C(2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: 94th Maintenance, Ft Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030715, wrongfully use cocaine on or about (030524-030527); reduction to E1, forfeiture of $575 pay per month for two 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:  22
Current ENL Date: 020109    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 08Mos, 11Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 08Mos, 11Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63G/Fuel & Elec Sys Rep   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Camden, NY
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant is currently employed by the Department of Veteran's Affairs in NY.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 6 August 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct for testing positive for cocaine on 030527, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions 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 28 August 2003, 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.

       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 and documents 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, the analyst noted that 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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue that other Soldiers were involved, but the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Furthermore, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  The applicants does state in his application that he has been rated 90% disability because of his service connected conditions and diagnosed with anxiety disorder and PTSD, but does not provide any documentation from Veterans Affairs.  Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's contention, that he served overseas in Djibout, Africa, Iraq and Kuwait, but the record is void of the facts of his service.  Corrections to the applicant record, does not fall within the purview of this Board.  The applicant may apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), utilizing DD Form 149 regarding this matter.  An application for that Board is enclosed.  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: 20 November 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
(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
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090018699
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages