Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/08/09 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "In September 2007, I informed CPT [ redacted ], my Commanding Officer, that I was struggling with a cocaine addiction and requested rehabilitation after I failed a urinalysis. No actions were taken other than receiving an Article 15 and two days later, I deployed with the unit to Iraq for a 15 month tour. The first week upon return, I used Cocaine again (since I was still addicted). I was out-processed the next three months." II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: N/A See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 090526 Discharge Received: Date: 090731 Chapter: 14-12c(2) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: 24th Ordnance Company, 87th Combat Sustainment Support Bn, Hunter Army Airfield, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 071105, made a false official statement to an NCO (071015); made a false official statement to a CID official (071015) and wrongful use of cocaine (070915-070918); reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $650/month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 090409, wrongful use of cocaine (090216-090219); reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $699/month for two months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (except for AA meetings) (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 19 Current ENL Date: 070207 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 5Mos, 24Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 5Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 89B10 Ammunition Spec GT: 104 EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: Iraq (071108-090201) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM/wCSS, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Athens, TN Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 May 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct for testing positive for the use of cocaine, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. She was advised of her rights. On 26 May 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 21 July 2009, 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. 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. 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 she requested drug rehabilitation assistance from her chain of command after her first drug abuse incident in 2007. She further states that instead of treatment, she received an Article 15 and then was deployed to Iraq. The analyst notes the applicant's contention; however, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support her issue. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support her contention. The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and she has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of her request for an upgrade of her discharge. Furthermore, 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. 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: 19 April 2011 Location: Atlanta, Georgia Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: [ redacted ] Exhibits Submitted: None VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony 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: N/A Other: N/A RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: N/A 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 AR20100020954 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages