Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, he feels his discharge was unjustified.  He was unable to control his actions due to self-medication in the military.  He attempted to get help many times.  He was denied appointments in which he was trying to seek assistance by his leadership.  This was done to other Soldiers also. 

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: 101122
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 101220   Chapter: 9       AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure	   RE:     SPD: JPD   Unit/Location: G Forward Support Company, 3d Battalion, 82d Field Artilley Regiment, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX  

Time Lost: Under 10 USC 972: (101005-101006) for 2 days. (unknown)

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100728, was disrespectful in language and deportment towards a Noncommissioned Officer x 2 (100303 and 100721); failed to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time x 3 (100521; 100721, and 100721), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $423.00 x 1 (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days. (CG)

100816, suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $423.00 x 1 was vacated effective (100816); based on the applicant's offense of being disrespectful in language towards a Noncommissioned Officer. 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 080221    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91D10 Power Generator Equipment Repairer   GT: 91   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (090103-091127)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ICM-w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR 

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record indicates that on 7 July 2010, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 18 November 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharges.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 22 November 2010, 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 Army.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 30 November 2010, the separation authority approved the separation action 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 and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted use information is used in the discharge process.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure.  The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems. 
       
             The applicant contends he feels his discharge was unjustified.  He was unable to control his actions due to self-medication in the military.  However, 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.  Furthermore, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  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.  In fact, the applicant’s one Article 15 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and numerous negative counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity in this case.  
       
             Further, the applicant contends he attempted to get help many times.  He was denied appointments in which he was trying to seek assistance by his leadership.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  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.  Additionally, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from his situation through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.



Therefore, 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: 11 April 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Joann Thompson
                 LMSW, Team Leader
                1817 Olde Homestead Lane 
                 Lancaster, PA 17601

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149 and DD Form 214

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: No Change
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 AR20110021214
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages