Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/01/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant requests for his discharge to be reviewed and upgraded, because he believes he was unjustly separated from the Army by his unit.  He states, in effect, that upon redeployment from Afghanistan the unit went on block leave for Christmas.  When returning for duty, both he and his fellow Soldier in his platoon failed a urinalysis for positive THC.  His fellow Soldier and he were both the same rank and had the same time in service, and it was a first offense by both of them.  They were both recommended for retention by their front line supervisors and platoon leader, and their company commander.  However, his fellow Soldier who also tested positive for THC was retained in the Army, but he was not.  He believes that the miscarriage of justice is that even though they were similarly situated Soldiers, they were treated differently.  Other than this one offense, for which he admitted guilt, his service in the Army was characterized as being stellar, as reflected in the attached letter signed his platoon leader who states that he performed his duties and responsibilities as a paratrooper in an exemplary manner and he always went above and beyond what was required of him.  His awards and decorations also attest to exemplary duty performances.  He takes full responsibility for his actions, which he realizes were in violation of the Army rules and regulations, and not keeping in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army service.  He respectfully requests that his characterization of service be changed to honorable to allow him the chance to affiliate with either the Army Reserve or Army National Guard, so he can once again serve his country.  With a characterization of service as general under honorable conditions, he has also lost eligibility to the Post 9/11 GI Bill, any unemployment compensation that he might have otherwise received, and it continues to hamper his ability to find suitable employment outside of the military

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: 110509
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110608   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: A Co, 1st Bn, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, Vicenza, Italy  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110406, wrongfully used marijuana (101223), reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $733 x 2 months; 45-day extra duty and restriction, (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 081016    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 23 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 07 Mos, 23 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B (Infantryman)   GT: 128   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Italy; SWA   Combat: Afghanistan (NIF)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; NDSM; ACM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; NATO MDL


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 May 2011, 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 wrongful use of marijuana (101223), recommended his retention in the Army and advised him of his rights.  
       
       On 11 May 2011, 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 or be retained in the Armed Forces.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 19 May 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       Record includes a CID Report, dated 15 March 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 and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.  
       
       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 service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant contends that his discharge was unjust because another Soldier involved in the same incident was not separated.  However, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single 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 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 also clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's in service accomplishments as stated in his application.  However, the analyst did not find the said issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant's issues about his desire 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 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: 26 June 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes (Redacted)

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 18 January 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current 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:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
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 AR20120002300
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages