Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/05	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his situation falls under the inequity policy for a discharge upgrade.  He explains that he joined the Army in September 2007 as an 88M, Motor Transport Operator, for three years.  When he completed his training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, he reported to his first duty station at Fort Hood, Texas, in February 2008.  He had no problems in the Army and was doing great with no incidents or disciplinary action of any kind.  He deployed to Iraq in June and was in Iraq for a year.  He was doing great and was gaining rank and enjoying being an American Soldier.  He returned home and everything was going great.  Around March, he started having sleep problems and he thought this would affect his work.  He used marijuana for sleep twice and failed a urinalysis.  This was his very first for being in trouble during the two and half years he has been in the Army.  He received an Article 15 and the chapter paperwork was started.  He took all the punishment that came with the Article 15 and also began the chapter process.  He felt like this was unfair since it was his first negative incident since his enlistment.  He knew of other soldiers with more than one positive urinalysis and they were only given an Article 15.  He felt like he was not given a second chance even after he has been a model Soldier for the first two and half years.  That is the reason he feels his discharge falls under the inequity policies for a discharge upgrade because it was only one isolated incident.  He was on track to ETS honorably in October 2010 but was discharged before he could receive an honorable discharged.  He was only short four months from earning his honorable discharge.  He believes that he should have been given a chance before being discharged for his first ever Article 15 or any other disciplinary action.  He respectfully asks the Board to consider his discharge.  He knows that an upgrade to honorable would be of great benefit to him.  He would greatly appreciate it if the Board could grant him his request.  He can only hope that he has added all the information to fulfill his request.  He is looking forward to hearing from the Board soon and thanks the Board for their time. 

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: 100521
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100608   Chapter: 14-12c(2)    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse)	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: G Forward Support Company, 5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, Fort Hood, Texas 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100219, wrongfully used marijuana (091205-100105), reduced to E-1, forfeiture of $723 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: 070912    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  20 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 08 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 08 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	none
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M (Motor Transport Operator)   GT: 104   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (080611-090529)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM; NDSM; ICM-2CS; GWOTSM; ASR; OSR; MUC

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 May 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for testing positive for marijuana during two urinalysis tests on (100105) and (100308), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 21 May 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 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.  
       
       In an undated memorandum, 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 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's contention of an isolated incident; however his record of service indicate that there were two incidents.  Even a single incident would be a discrediting entry and would constitute 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 two incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct by abusing illegal drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       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 acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  The record shows that on 1 February 2010, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong.  The analyst concluded that just because the applicant suffers from PTSD does not mean he doesn't know the difference between right and wrong or that he did not have control over his behavior.  There are many Soldiers with the same condition that complete their service successfully. 
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issues about an upgrade that would provide 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.
       
       Further, the analyst also noted the applicant’s sleep issues and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.
       
       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 August 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated 29 February 2012; Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 1 February 2010; Separation Orders, dated 27 May 2010; 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 AR20120004490
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages