Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070830 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 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: 960726 Discharge Received: Date: 960906 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: A Co, 27th EN, Fort Bragg, NC 28307 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960613, wrongfully used marijuana between (960428-960528), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $400 x 2, 45 days extra duty and 45 days restriction (FG). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 7412 HOR City, State: West Branch, MI Current ENL Date: 940630 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 07 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 07 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12B1P Combat Engineer GT: 103 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 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 wrongful use of marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. 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 service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 8 August 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 an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 22 April 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and the issues 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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: 20 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: 26 August 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070012120 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages