Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/07/21 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she was injured during training and was also having family difficulties. The day before returning from convalescent leave her grandfather past away. While at home she also filed for divorce. She was young and immature and did not know how to deal with stress. She requests an upgrade of her discharge to honorable. 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: 011019 Discharge Received: Date: 011031 Chapter: 14-12c(1) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKD Unit/Location: FTC, 120th AG Bn, Fort Jackson, SC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 011015, wrongfully used marijuana (010728-010828), forfeiture of $243 for two months, 14 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: 19 Current ENL Date: 010510 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 05 Mos, 10 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Queen Creek, AZ Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states she obtained two college degrees and has been working at the Superior Court of Arizona for five years. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 October 2001, 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-abuse of illegal drugs, for wrongfully using marijuana (010728-010828), with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service. On an undated document, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on her 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 with an uncharacterized discharge. On 26 October 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s separation from the Army with an uncharacterized discharge. 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. The regulation requires an uncharacterized discharge for individuals that are in entry level status. 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 noted from the evidence of record that the applicant received an uncharacterized separation while in an entry-level status (ELS). The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her 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 her service. The applicant contends that she was immature, had family issues, and since leaving the Army has obtained two college degrees and works at the Superior Court in the State of Arizona. However, the record indicates that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge with the description of service as uncharacterized because the applicant was in fact in entry level status. Army Regulation 635-200 provides in pertinent part, that a Soldier is in entry-level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period. Soldiers who are found to lack the necessary motivation, adaptability, self-discipline, ability, or attitude to become productive Soldiers may be expeditiously separated while in entry-level status. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. Moreover, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Further, the applicant contends she is entitled to an upgrade of her discharge because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to the misconduct. Specifically, she claims stress caused by family issues at home resulted in her discharge. While the applicant may believe this stress at home was the underlying cause of her misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that she sought relief from this stress through her command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, she has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for her misconduct. Finally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application. 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. 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: 24 February 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Vicente A. Sanchez, 5636 E. McDowell Rd., Bldg M5710, Phoenix, AZ 85008 Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Birth certificate, court documents, eleven character reference letters, college degree, and other certificates, DD Form 214, discharge packet. 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. Moreover and notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as “AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(1),” and block 26, separation code as "JKD ." In view of these errors the Board directed that an administrative change be made to block 25 to read separation authority as “AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2),” and block 26, separation code to read "JKK," as approved by the separation authority. Except for the foregoing modifications the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable. IX. Board Decision Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 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: No change Other: Change the separation authority to AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c(2) with corresponding SPD Code of JKK. RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: EDGAR J. YANGER 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 AR20110015161 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages