Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/05	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he feels that an injustice was served because he was never briefed on this substance (K2) as being a controlled substance which he brought at a smoke shop and it was not an illegal substance when he purchased it.  When he returned from his deployment, he did not receive any briefings on drugs in the area. 

He did not deny that he smoked the K2 when he was asked and took his Article 15 and punishment.  However, he believes that his case was improper because it was an isolated incident; he has letters of recommendation to stay in the Army; was not briefed on synthetic cannabis and the package was clearly marked "does not contain banned substances" and was not given a copy of his urinalysis results.  

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: 		Retention   Date: 110721
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110919   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: ????? 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110614, wrongfully possessed 4 grams of synthetic cannibinoids (110424), wrongfully used synthetic cannibinoids between (110324-110424), reduction to Private First Class (E-3), forfeiture of $975.00 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (110814), extra duty and restriction for 30 days and an oral reprimand (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: Reenl/101014    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 11  Mos, 6  Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 5  Mos, 3  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 080329-080416/NA
                                       RA      080417-101013/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25U10 Signal Supt Sys Spec   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (100317-11110228)
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), GCMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICMDLw/CS, NCOPDR, 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 on 21 July 2011, 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 used and possessed a synthetic canniboids (a schedule 1 controlled substance) between (110324-110424).  However, the unit commander recommended that the applicant be retained in the United States Army until the expiration of his term of service.  He was advised of his rights. 
       
       On 29 July 2011, 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 that the applicant be retained in the US Army.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval that the applicant be retained and allowed to finish the remaining portion of his service obligation.  On 9 August 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 
       
       The record contains a CID Report of Investigation in reference to the applicant's offenses; wrongful possession of K2 and failing to obey a General Order (DOD Directive 10104.4) dated 27 April 2011.

       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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, 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.  The applicant, by violating the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs, compromised the trust and confidence placed in a Soldier.  The applicant, as a Soldier, 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he feels an injustice was served because he was never briefed on this substance (K2) as being a controlled substance which he brought at a smoke shop and it was not an illegal substance when he purchased it.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was command referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) after the randum car search and was recommended to attend the Army Drug Abuse Prevention Training (ADAPT) and to attend three individual sessions and to review what he learned in ADAPT.  The applicant further stated that the information he learned in the class was something that would help him make the right decisions in the future.  
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       The applicant further contends that he believes his case was improper because it was an isolated incident; he has letters of recommendation to stay in the Army and the package was clearly marked "does not contain banned substances" and he was not given a copy of his urinalysis results.  Even though the applicant claims it was a single incident, the analyst concluded that 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.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant's single 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 single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Additionally, 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.  
       
       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: 1 June 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 15 November 2011, self authored statement undated, DA Form 2627 (Article 15) dated 14 June 2011, xerox copies of his OMPF with various dates, copy of another indivuals Toxicology Report dated 12 May 2011, copy of information in reference to synthetic cannabis, statements from the CID Report. 























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 2    No change 3
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: No Change
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 AR20110024239
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages