Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/09/22	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that her discharge was inequitable because she had an undiagnosed medical condition.  She received a general discharge as a result of two positive drug tests.  She sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with PTSD as a result of being raped by a fellow Soldier.  She is now receiving 50 percent VA disability benefits for her service connected disability.  She believes her depression caused her PTSD which in turn caused her to use the drugs.  She requests an upgrade to honorable in order to be eligible for GI Bill benefits.

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: 050124
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050315   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: B Co, Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040622, wrongfully used cocaine (040406-040426), reduction to E-1, 30 days of extra duty (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: 021120    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 03Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 03Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10/Health Care Spc   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 24 January 2005, 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 wrongfully using cocaine (040406-040426), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       On 28 January 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf (not in the record).  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed elimination action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 8 February 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge 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, the issues, and documents 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 her 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 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, she knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant contends that she was unfairly discharged as result of an undiagnosed PTSD medical condition which was caused by her being raped by another Soldier, and as a result of this, she had turned to cocaine  to help her cope with her depression.  However, she provides no evidence to substantiate her contention.  In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut this presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant and she has not provided any evidence about the alleged rape.  Further, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  In fact the record shows that on 18 May 2004, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that she was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  
       
       Further the analyst noted that one of the DD Forms 2624 (Specimen Custody Document-Drug Testing) found in the applicant's official record shows that a urinalysis 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 counseling statement from the first sergeant, dated 19 May 2004, which indicates that the unit commander ordered the test based on a witnessed drug use by the applicant.  This would have given the unit commander probable cause to direct the urinalysis.  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 and the evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.
       
       Finally, 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.
       In view of the foregoing, 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: 13 May 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Counseling records (4), PT card, discharge documents, PTSD determination by the VA, DD Form 214, and performance appraisal.

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: 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 AR20100024492
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages