Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/11/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he realized the severity of the things that he has done and accepts 100% accountability for his actions.  He has learned his lesson and thinks he deserves another chance to show that he is fully capable of doing his best and doing what is expected of him from the Army.  He was in the Army for three years and seven months and he has served two deployments and gained the rank of SGT after two years of being in the Army.  During his deployment to Afghanistan, he took hashish from SPC L to prevent him from injuring himself or someone else on the mission.  It was brought to his attention that two Soldiers accued him of distributing hashish and there is no physical evidence that has shown that he had given hashis to two Soldiers except for two CID statements that stated those allegations.  He was told in February that he was being chaptered from the military and that he would be receiving an Article 15.  For almost two months he knew nothing of what was going on and was informed by CSM [redacted] that if he tried to fight it, he could receive an "other than honorable" discharge.  He was told by TDS that he wasn't getting discharged and then later he was told that in order to receive an Article 15 for drugs, they had to start the chapter paperwork and that he was not getting chaptered because this was just standard procedure.  He received an Article 15 on 18 April 2011, and was reduced to SPC, and was informed that he wasn't being discharged .  After he returned from the unit's 10 day training mission, he was told that he was being discharged once again, and that there was nothing he could do about it because the paperwork had already been signed by the Brigade Commander.  He was discharged unjustly.  He asked that he be allowed to receive an honorable discharge so that he amy be able to get back into the military or receive unemployment compensation and the GI Bill.     

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: UNK
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110629   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Headquarters, 5th BN, 25th FA, 4th Bde Combat Team, FOB shank, Afghanistan 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110418, willfully failed to report that he had received hashish from SPC L (110110); and he failed to properly clear SPC E's weapon when coming on to COP McClain (110104); reduction to Specialist(E4), forfeiture of $1,000.00, for two months (suspened until 14 October 2011); and 40 days extra duty (FG).   

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 071010    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  00
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 08 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13D10   GT: 113   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany, SWA   Combat: Iraq (081202-091031) Afghanistan (091101-100505)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, NDSM, ACM ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR. 

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 the 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 for failing to report that SPC L, had given him hashish, and he failed to properly clear SPC E's weapon when coming on the COP McClain, and he also distributed hashis to two other Soldiers with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       The applicant refused legal counsel, but 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 action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 6 May 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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, and the issue 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 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 the former Soldier’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
             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 the repeated incidents of misconduct, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

             Furthermore, 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.  
       
The analyst noted the applicant's issues about his desire to rejoin the Service, to have better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, 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.
       
       
       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.  
       
       Therefore, 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: 9 May 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: yes [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 17 October 2011, DD Form 214, and six statements in support of the applicant's request.

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: No Change

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 AR20110022206
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages