Application Receipt Date: 060118 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 040624 Discharge Received: Date: 050527 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 90th Regional Readiness Command, North Little Rock, AR 72118-2205 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040820 - wrongfully used cocaine on or before 10 June 2004/FG 2nd Article 15, 030315 - wrongfully used cocaine 21 November 2002/FG Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 520611 Current ENL Date: 980315 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 7 Yrs, 2 Mos, 13 Days ????? Total Service: 27 Yrs, 13Mos, 20 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 780208-900807/HD USAR 900808-980314/NA Highest Grade: E-7/SFC Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 44C10, Finance Accounts Specialist GT: 123 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM (2), ARAM (2), AGCM (4), ARCAM, NDSM (2), GWOTSM, AFRM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Post Service Accomplishments: None Submitted VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 24 June 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense/abuse of illegal drugs (he tested positive for cocaine), with an under than honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board, and submitted a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action. On 18 September 2004, the Administrative Separation Board met; applicant appeared with counsel. The Administrative Separation Board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of under other than honorable conditions. On 18 October 2004, the separation authority approved the finings and recommendations of the Administrative Separation Board and directed that the applicant remain flagged while he requested Headquarters, Department of the Amry to discharge the applicant with a characterization of service of General Under Honorable Conditions. On 28 April 2005, the Department of Army Office of Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved the involuntary separation of the applicant and directed that the applicant be separated with issuance of an Under Other than Honorable Conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge 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, and the issue he submitted, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his 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. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends the Board vote to deny relief in this case. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 22 November 2006 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 inequitable, based on the applicant's overall length and quality of service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge process. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. This action entails reinstatement of grade to E-7. X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SFC/E-7 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 27 November 2006 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060000692