Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/09/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he wants to further his life and achieve his goals that he has set after leaving the Army. He has seen what happens when you make the wrong mistakes in life, but he is willing to look past that and better himself as a person and a productive citizen of his community. He has job opportunities; however, they won't hire him because of his discharge and he really would like to work for one of those companies. He is just asking for a second chance. 

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 091014   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Delta Company, 26th Brigade Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (081023-081107) for 15 days. The applicant's mode of return is unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 090211, AWOL from (081023-081107), disrespectful in language toward SGT, a noncommissioned officer (090202) and wrongfully used provoking words towards SGT, a noncommissioned officer (090408), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $824.00 pay, suspended, and 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:  18
Current ENL Date: 070927    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  23 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 3 Days The net active service this period on the DD Form 214, block 12c is incorrect; should be as annotated above. The applicant had a period of AWOL, which was not shown on the DD Form 214 block 29, Time Lost.  
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 3 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he went AWOL from (081023-081107), failed to report to his appointed place of duty x 4 (090123), (090616), 090707), (090708), disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer (090202), used provoking words towards a noncommissioned officer (090408), failed to report to his appointed place of duty 090408), for which he received a Field Grade Article 15 for AWOL, disrespectful in language towards SGT, a noncommissioned officer (090202) and wrongfully used provoking words towards SGT, a noncommissioned officer (090408), wrongfully used marijuana between (090511-090610) and showed disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer (090709). The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted 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 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 24 September 2009, the separation authority 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst determined that 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 the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that the DD Form 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) found in the applicant's official record shows that the test was coded CO which indicates "Competence for Duty/Command Direct/Fitness for duty.”  The commander directs an individual test for fitness for duty.  The commander has a suspicion that a Soldier is using a controlled substance, however, does not have probable cause.  The Limited Use Policy applies to this test basis, per AR 600-85.  However, the evidence of record contains a sworn statement from a SGT/Team Leader that indicated the applicant's eyes was very red, he was acting like he was under the influence of some type of drug or narcotics, his speech was slurred and he was moving as though he was in slow motion.  
       
       This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis.  Additionally, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, who would have informed him if the Limited Use Policy applied.  In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the code on the DD Form 2624 was in all likelihood incorrect and should have been coded PO for “Probable Cause” instead of CO for “Competence for Duty.”  The analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case.  The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue he has job opportunities, however, they won't hire him because of his discharge and he really would like to work for one of those companies.  He is just asking for a second chance.  The analyst considered the applicant’s quality of service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  
       Therefore, 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: 11 May 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 

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












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 AR20100022513
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages