Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080707 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant. 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: 061130 Discharge Received: Date: 070302 Chapter: 14-12C AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: B Co, 101st Bde Troops Bn, 101st Sustainment Bde, 101st Airborne Div (AA), Ft. Campbell, KY Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 26 Current ENL Date: 040408 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ????? Total Service: 10 Yrs, 05 Mos, 22 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA - 960911-990224/HD RA - 990225-010607/HD RA - 010608-040407/HD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 68Q Pharmacy Spec GT: 121 EDU: 3 yrs college Overseas: Republic of Korea Combat: Iraq (050822-060816) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3), AGCM (3), NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM, NCOPDR (2), ASR, OSR (2), EFMB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: El Paso, TX Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 November 2006, 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 on or about 13 January 2006—for wrongfully having an inappropriate relationship with another Soldier, wrongfully distributing some amount of zolpidem (Ambien), a schedule IV controlled substance and, wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 21 February 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 18 April 2006. 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 a careful review of the Applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the Applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The analyst does not condone the Applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the length of the Applicant's service to include the former Soldier’s combat service mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Furthermore, at the time of discharge the Applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.” If reenlistment is desired, the Applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. Additionally, 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. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the Applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 29 April 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the Applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his combat service and, as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 5 No change 0 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080011020 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages