Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/10/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "I am requesting a change do to the fact that I believe I provided the Army with substantial evidence on my own behalf to give a shadow of doubt as to my quilt, and isn't that the basis of America justice system, guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, all of this evidence of which I will provide to you as well.  The second reason is that I served in the Army for almost six years, two and a half of which I spent in combat.  I am a veteran of my country and one that truly fought for the love of it.  So tell me if there no honor in that.  So if a Li Colonel saying that I have not enough evidence for a shadow of doubt is justice even I have to wonder what I fought for at all.  I would like to add that in my 5 and a half years in the Army prior to this screening I had no positive test and you may look that up.  Not to mention all the test afterwards including only weeks after were all negative.  So you have to ask did I rally just skate under the system for that long and to skate under right after that including my own hair test.  Also the saliva test and urine test that I have taken since the Army for other jobs and passed those as well.  Furthermore, were all the procedures of the Army drug test done correctly like me washing my hands before and after no.  Did the observer keep my gentiles in plain sight, no.  I have been a server and an observer, I have never seen the rules followed exactly right, so who is to say the your system is full proof because it isn't.  I would like for you to consider out of these things as you review my case, and all also consider my service record, I am a veteran of this country and a man who is asking you to do the right thing."

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: 100309
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100402   Chapter: 14-12c(2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: A Btry, 2/8th RA Regt, Fort Wainwright, AK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100225, Wrongful use of cocaine between (091101 and 091103), reduction to E4; forfeiture of $1,063.00 per month for 2 months (suspended); extra duty for 30 days; and oral reprimand, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 061120    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 04 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 10 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-040624-040802/NA
                                       RA-040803-061119/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska, Southwest Asia-2   Combat: Iraq (050815-061202) and (080924-090924)
Decorations/Awards: ICM-w/2CS, ARCOM-2, AAM-3, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Etowah, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 9 March 2010, 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 having tested positive for cocaine (091103), and for having received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for driving under the influence of alcohol (080124), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 10 March 2010, 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 Army 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 18 March 2010, 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 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, the documents, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 special trust and confidence placed in a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  The applicant, as a NCO, 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 the misconduct diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant contends that the drug processing at the time of his discharge could have been flawed.  The analyst note the applicant contentions, however, the applicant's positive urinalysis test was a result of the command's random urine testing program to maintain good order and discipline within the unit.  Such random testing has been upheld by civilian and military courts as lawful and does not violate the US Constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, and self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment nor does it violate Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  In addition, military orders to produce a urine sample have been upheld in court as both legal and lawful and essential to military discipline.  Additionally , AR 600-85 Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP), paragraph 1-27 governs the role and responsibilities of the unit prevention leaders (UPL).
       
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant's in-service accomplishments.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  
       
       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: 15 July 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, Letter from United States Senate (2 pages), dated 6 October 2010, Documents from OMEGA Laboratories (2 pages), and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

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 AR20100025868
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages