Application Receipt Date: 060316 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he has been accepted to WOL Bible Institute and would like to use his GI Bill to help pay for his tuition. He need an upgrade to do so, and would be very grateful if the Board could do so. 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: 010308 Discharge Received: Date: 010328 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: 82nd Military Police Company, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 28310 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 000815, Wrongfully used LSD, Ecstasy and marijuana, between ( November 1999 to June 2000), (Field Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 780221 Current ENL Date: 961022 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 4 Yrs, 5 Mos, 7 Days ????? Total Service: 4 Yrs, 5 Mos, 7 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 95B1P Military Police GT: 104 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, GCMDL, 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 March 2001, 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 (you wrongfully used LSD, Ecstasy and marijuana), 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. On 8 March 2001, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged 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 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 this 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: 14 May 2007 Location: Tampa, FL Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None 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, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. 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: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 21 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003857 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages