Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident. He had 4 years and 8 months of good service without any other adverse actions. Prior to his discharge he served honorably stateside and overseas (OEF and OIF). He is looking for an upgrade of his discharge for employment purses as he has recently received a bachelor’s degree and is applying for employment and believes a general discharge may hinder his opportunities. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: None See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Retain Date: 060324 Discharge Received: Date: 060421 Chapter: 14-12c(2) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Drug Abuse) RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: D Co, 187th Medical Bn, Fort Sam Houston, TX Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060117, wrongfully used cocaine (051119-051122), reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $500 per month for two months (1 month suspended), 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 041006 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 06 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 05 Mos, 19 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 010822-041005/HD USAR 001103-010821/NIF Highest Grade: E-5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91W20/Health Care Spc GT: 110 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA Combat: Afghanistan (020601-021217) Iraq (030807-040404) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, OSR, CMB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: Has attained a Bachelor's Degree in History. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 March 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—commission of a serious offense, for wrongfully using cocaine and recommended that the applicant be retained in the Army. He was advised of his rights. On 8 March 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended retention in the Army. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended the applicant’s retention in the Army as well. On 11 April 2006, the separation authority reviewed the recommendations of the subordinate commanders, waived further rehabilitation 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, the issue, and the documents submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable. The applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on an isolated incident; however, the analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his 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 special trust and confidence placed in a non-commissioned officer. The applicant, as an NCO, 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 his misconduct diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's in service accomplishments as stated in his application. However, the analyst did not find the said issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. Further, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted he has graduated from college and received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 8 August 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NCOERs, awards, college degree. 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 Board Vote: Character - Change 2 No change 3 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder ????? 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 AR20120005815 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages