Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/03/29	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant request that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and the time in service be corrected on his DD Form 214.

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: 091022
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100622   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: 16TH Quartermaster Company, 530th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion, 49th Quartermaster Group, Fort Lee, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 090812, wrongfully used marijuana between (090617-090716), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $699.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty for 45 days and a written reprimand (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: 080725    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 10 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 4 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG 080129-080519/NA
                                       IADT   080520-080724/HD
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92W10 Water Treatment Spec   GT: 88   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, 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 on 22 October 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs; in that he wrongfully used marijuana between (090616-090716), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 6 November 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 10 November 2009, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The unit commander requested a six month suspension for the applicant based on his hard work and better judgement.  On 30 November 2009, the separation authority granted the six month suspension of the administrative separation action for a period of six months.  On 21 May 2010, the unit commander recommended that the suspension be vacated  based on the applicant's offense of wrongful use of marijuana, which was his second offense.  On 27 May the intermediate commander concured to vacate the suspension of the administrative separation action.  27 May 2010, the separation authority vacated the suspension of the administrative separation action 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.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable and the time in service be corrected on his DD Form 214.  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 evidence of record shows that the applicant at the time of his discharge had completed a total of 2 years, 4 months and 24 days of active, military service, to include his prior active and prior inactive military service.  According to the applicant's enlistment contract and the time he served up to his administrative separation from the Army is correct on his DD Form 214.
       
       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: 12 October 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149 dated 21 March 2011.



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 AR20110006097
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages