Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070820 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 960408 Discharge Received: Date: 960426 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: HHC, 307 EN, Fort Bragg, NC 28307 Time Lost: AWOL for 17 days (960105-960121), mode of return unknown and Confinement/Military Authorities for 23 days (060307-060330). Total time lost 40 days. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): SCM, 960306, AWOL (960105-960122), wrongful use of marijuana between (951105-951204) and wrongful possession of marijuana (960215). Reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $583 x 1, and confinement for 30 days. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 7503 HOR City, State: Detroit, MI Current ENL Date: 950510 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 07 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 22 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-921124-950509/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y1P Supply GT: 94 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 April 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for being found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial for 18 days AWOL, and two specifications of use of marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant's election of rights are not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 11 April 1996, 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 applicant's record contains two Military Police Reports dated 12 February 1996 and 15 February 1996. 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 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 a 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. Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 15 August 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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. X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 19 August 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070011712 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages