Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/27	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 051222
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060203   Chapter: 14-12c(2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: HQ, 3-321st FAR, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 051121, wrongful use of phencyclidine (051025-051031); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 021001    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 04Mos, 03Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 04Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 121   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: The applicant claims he served in Iraq; however, the dates are not in the file.
Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, AGCM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Iowa City, IA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on  19 December 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs for wrongful use of phencyclidine, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 21 December 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 January 2006, again the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  On 19 January 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than 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, 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 and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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 his service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue regarding his treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the independent document (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics) submitted with the application indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with (PTSD).  However, the analyst found that the applicant's report of mental status evaluation indicated that there was no evidence of any psychiatric condition which would warrant disposition through medical channels and the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, regarding the applicant's issue indicating that he never received proper drug treatment; however, AR 600-85, paragraph 3-8 entitled self referrals, states that the applicant could have self referred himself to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) counseling center for assistance.  Finally, 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.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 16 December 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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090018808
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages