Application Receipt Date: 060123 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he served over 90% of my required initial enlistment with no prior disciplanary actions. I recieved the Army Good Conduct medal which can only be attained by serving three consecutive years in service, without any U.C.M.J. action. During my final year of my first enlistment, I did recieve UCMJ action for a positive urinalysis, but it was my first infraction after 3 years of service. My chain of command did not give me the oppurtunity recover from my mistakes and decided to place me out of service. I served in war during operation Iraqi Freedom, and now that I am out of the service I just wish to enroll in school with a Positive background and recieve all of the benifits entitled to an Honorable discharge, namely , the Montgomery GI bill. 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: 050208 Discharge Received: Date: 050218 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: B Company, 32nd Signal Battalion, APO, AE 09175 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041124, wrongfully used ecstasy on or about (030926-031003) and with intent to deceive, signed an official record (sick call slip), which was false (040830); (Field Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 830110 Current ENL Date: 010807 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 12 Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 12 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 25Q10 Multichannel Transmission System Operator Maint GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (030305-050928) Decorations/Awards: GCMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 8 February 2005, 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 (on 3 October 04, he submitted a urine specimen that tested positive for ecstasy), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant waived 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 service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The Special Court-Martial Convening Authority documentation approving the separation action and directing that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions are not part of the available records, and the analyst is presuming Government regularity in the discharge process. 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, 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, 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 analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 29 November 2006 Location: Washington, DC 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner 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: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 1 December 2006 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060001309 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages