Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/07/20 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: I returned from Iraq, May 8, 2010. I was not given any down time or did not receive no reintagration briefings. Due to the time zones difference and no time to adjust, I was late a few times, so they discharged me on patterns of misconduct. It was not my fault this happened. I should have been allowed rest and recover time. I deserver an honorable discharge." 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: 100615 Discharge Received: Date: 100622 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: HHC, 1st BCT (R)(P) Fort Bragg, NC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100611, Failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 5 (100511, 100511, 100513, 100513, and 100521), and wrongful use of marijuana between (100417 and 100517), reduction to E3; forfeiture of $961.00 pay per month for two months (suspended); extra dut for 45 day; and restriction for 45 days, (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 090421 Current ENL Term: 06 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 02Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 01Mos, 08Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-071204-090420/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88M10/Motor Transport Op GT: NIF EDU: GED Overseas: Korea, Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (Period of service not found in the available records). Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Greenfield, TN Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 15 June 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for having received a Field Grade Article 15 (100611) for numerous failures to report and wrongfully using marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 15 June 2010, 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 Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 15 June 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue, and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of the former Soldier’s 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 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. The applicant contends that he was not given any down time or did not receive any reintagration briefings, and that due to the time zones difference and no time to adjust, he was late a few times, which lead to him being discharcharged for a pattern of misconduct. However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed other discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Further, the analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. In view of the foregoing, 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: 8 April 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review. 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20100019490 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages