Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/22 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant 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? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 001101 Discharge Received: Date: 010629 Chapter: 8-26e(2)(a) AR: NGR 600-200 Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: C Btry, 2-111th FA, VA ARNG, Emporia, VA 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: 19 Current ENL Date: 980721 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 09Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 09Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 981028-990304/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember GT: 81 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, ARCAM V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he is attending community college. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 10 October 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, paragraph 8-26q (3), NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct—for testing positive for marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant was advised of his right to consult with legal counsel, 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. On 9 July 2001, HQ, Department of the Army and Air Force, Office of the Adjutant General of Virginia, Virginia Army National Guard, Blackstone, VA, Orders 190-121, discharged the applicant from the Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, effective date 29 June 2001, with a general, under conditions discharge. The record does contain a properly constituted NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service). It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-26e (2), NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." b. Legal Basis for Separation: National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army National Guard. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army Reserve National Guard. Paragraph 8-26e (2) of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for misconduct to include, abuse of illegal drugs. 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 issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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 a fully honorable discharge. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Therefore, 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: 16 October 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 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: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090001497 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages