Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/06/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.  He contends being informed that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after six months.  He further contends that he is attempting to further his education and needs an honorable discharge to receive a scholarship.

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: 970228
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 970312   Chapter: 14-12c(1)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKF   Unit/Location: Service Battery, 3-18th FA Bn, Fort Sill, OK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 970129, wrongfully used marijuana (961113-961213); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $450 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, 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:  23
Current ENL Date: 950915    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 08 Mos, 26 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-910617-930502/HD
                                       RA-930503-950914/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, OSB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Columbia, SC 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 28 February 1997, 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 receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for using marijuana and receiving negative  counseling statements for failing to repair (FTRs), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights. 
        
       On 3 March 1997, the applicant waived 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 action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 5 March 1997, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The analyst noted on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "Separation Authority" reads "Paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26, "Separation (SPD) Code" reads "JKF."  However, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of "Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense," which the "Separation (SPD) Code" is "JKQ."
       
       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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the    issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. 
       
       By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions or a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.
       
       The applicant contends being informed that his discharge would be upgraded to honorable after six months. The U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.
       
             The applicant further contends that he is attempting to further his education and needs an honorable discharge to receive a scholarship.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 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.

             Further, this issue is not a matter on which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion relating to the discharge process nor is it associated with the discharge at the time of issuance.  

             Additionally, the analyst found that someone in the separation process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "Separation Authority" as Paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26, "Separation Code (SPD)" as  "JKF."  The analyst recommends that block 25, "Separation Authority" be administratively corrected to read "Paragraph 14-12c," and block 26, "Separation Code" corrected to "JKQ."  

             Except for the foregoing modifications to the applicant's Separation Authority, and the Separation (SPD) Code, 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: 2 March 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (100608).

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, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, "Separation Authority" to read Paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26, "Separation Code (SPD)" to read "JKF."  In view of these errors, the Board voted to administratively correct block 25, "Separation Authority" to read "Paragraph 14-12c," and block 26, "Separation Code" to "JKQ," as approved by the separation authority.  

Except for the forgoing modifications to the applicant's Separation Authority, and the Separation (SPD) Code,  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: The Board directs ARBA Promulgation Team-Arlington to administratively correct block 25, "Separation Authority" to "Paragraph 14-12c," and block 26, "Separation (SPD) Code " to "JKQ." 				
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None












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 AR20100016871
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages