Applicant Name:  ?????

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

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge is inequitable because it was based on two incidents in 35 months of service.  He contends his misconduct was the result of him not being properly diagnosed and treated for depression after returning from Iraq.  The applicant also contends he did not receive adequate help from his command to help deal with his drug related issues.

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: 050914
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051012   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: E Co, STB, 1st BCT, 101st Abn Div (AASLT), Fort Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050504, Wrongful use of marijuana between (041219 and 050118), reduction to E1 and extra duty for 45 days, (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: 021105    Current ENL Term: 08 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 11  Mos, 08  Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 11  Mos, 08  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31B10/Military Police   GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030728-040204)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2 

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 14 September 2005, 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-commission of a serious offense for the wrongful use of marijuana between (050424 and 050524) and for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for the wrongful use of marijuana (050504), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       
       On 15 September 2005, 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 discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 20 September 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant be discharged 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 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the documents, and the issues submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       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 his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting fully honorable discharge.  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.  
       
       Furthermore, 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 an honorable discharge.  
       
       The applicant contends that his discharge is inequitable because it is based on two incidents in 35 months of service with no other adverse actions.  The analyst noted the applicant's contention; however, the analyst concluded that the applicant offenses constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting an honorable discharge.
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant's contention, that the Army failed to complete his rehabilitation plan per agreement and standard aftercare procedures, and that he was left to relapse as a result of significat stress and depression due to his deployment experiences in Iraq in 2004.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's contentions and acknowledges the Rehabilitation Agreement signed by him on 17 September 2004, i.e., the expectation of the.  Soldier and Commander commitment to rehabilitation plan, (no alcohol/drug use while enrolled, performance and conduct satisfactory, regular attendance at self-help meetings (e.g. AA/NA) and counseling sessions, patient will be active participant in group therapy).  Tasks/Milestones; appearance complies with military requirements, absence of physical indicators of abuse, completes homework assignments, attends treatment sessions, actively addresses treatment goals and objectives.  
       
       
       
       
       The agreement the applicant entered in as part of his rehabilitation was done on 17 September 2004. On        7 June 2005, he tested positive for marijuana during a command directed urunilysis which constituted a breach of the agreement.  After reviewing the applicant's overall service, the unit commander determined that further rehabilitation would not be in the best interest of the Army after several attempts of trying to rehabilitate the applicant.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation.
       
       Moreover, the record shows the applicant was discharged for the wrongful use of marijuana between (050424 and 050524) and for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for the wrongful use of marijuana (050504).  Also records show that the applicant tested positive for marijuana use (050118 and 050607).  The evidence of record indicates 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.
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       Additionally, 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 or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       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: 24 September 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: yes [ redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers: Father 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, Brief from Legal Counsel to include documents from the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) (123 pages), and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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 AR20120009008
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 4 pages