Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070711 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. 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: 040919 Discharge Received: Date: 050515 Chapter: 8-26e(2) NGR: 600-200 Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 972d Military Police Co (716), Melrose, MA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 1984/03 HOR City, State: Saugus, MA Current ENL Date: 010807 Current ENL Term: 08 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 09Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 09Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-010807-020618/NA ADT-020619-021025/UNC ARNG-021026-030119/NA OAD-030120-030907/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 95B10/Military Police GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Afghanistan (030222-030807) Decorations/Awards: ARCM, NDSM, AFRM (w/M Device), ASR, GWOTSM, ACM, ARCOM, C/Ach V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 19 September 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, Paragraph 8-26, NGR 600-200 and Chapter 7, AR 135-178, by reason of misconduct for positive urinalysis, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant waived 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 service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 18 March 2005, 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 a Bar to Reenlistment, Immediate Reenlistment or Extention (Certificate) dated 19 September 2004. b. Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. The regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following: minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities. 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, document, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 her 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. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's accomplishments outlined in his application and in the document with his application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. In view of the foregoing, 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: 23 July 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 25 July 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070011878 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages