Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/08/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "I am writing this appeal for several reasons in order to request a change to my General/Under Honorable Conditions discharge from active duty service in June 9, 2009 to an Honorable discharge. I believe that this discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 58 months of service with no other adverse action. I was not treated fairly by the chain of command of the 2-3 Brigade Troops Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Stewart, Georgia due to the fact that 2 other Non-Commissioned Officers within the brigade were demoted to the rank of E-4 during that time frame and not discharged from active duty service."

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: 090610   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 2/3d BTB, Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 090324, Making a false official statement on a urinalysis ledger (090202), reduction to E4; forfeiture of $1063.00 pay per month for 2 months; 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:  24
Current ENL Date: 041110    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  The applicant's record is missing any documents that would have extended his enlistment, however, the Enlisted Record Brief found in the record makes reference to the applicant having an ETS dated of (110709).
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 10  Mos, 01  Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 10  Mos, 01  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10/Automated Logistical Specialist   GT: 101   EDU: BA Degree   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (060919-071010)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states: "I currently hold a position as Operations Manager of a Third Party Logistic organization."






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, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for knowingly and willingly compromising another Soldier's urine sample while acting as an observer on or (090202) for which he receive an Article 15, 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 Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 31 May 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed 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 submitted, 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 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 even though a isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's isolated incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This isolated incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant, as a NCO, had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by his incident of misconduct.
       
       
       
       
       Further, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the accomplishments outlined with the application.  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.  
       
       The applicant contends he was unfairly treated by his chain of command at the time of discharge, however, the applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence or documentation to support the contention that he was unjustly discharged.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       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: 25 April 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, Self-Authored Letter, Certificate for award of the Army Commendation Medal and the Good Conduct Medal, Service School Academic Evaluation Report, NCO Evaluation Report (3), Letter to Congressman to include attachments (12 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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder



















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 AR20110018072
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages