Application Receipt Date: 060323 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant stated in essence that he was injured in Afghanistan, and placed on medical profile. He further states that he was redeployed to Kuwait and Iraq and served there until his return to the U.S., upon which time he was processed for a Medical Board. While back in the U.S., he states he used a drug and was separated for it. He wishes to have his discharge upgraded so that he can use his 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: 050503 Discharge Received: Date: 050519 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: Delta Battery, 1st Battalion, 39th Field Artillery Regiment, 3d Infantry Division Home Detachment, Fort Stewart, Georgia 31314 Time Lost: AWOL, for 13 days from (050309-050321), and for 1 day from (050329-050329); the applicant surrendered to the military authorities in both instances at Fort Stewart, GA 31314 Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 820518 Current ENL Date: 010426 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 4 Yrs, 0 Mos, 10 Days ????? Total Service: 4 Yrs, 0 Mos, 10 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10, Infantryman GT: 127 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Afghanistan (011215-020414); Kuwait/Iraq (030120-030826) Decorations/Awards: PUC (Army), GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM, NDSM, ASR, CIB, PB V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None were submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 3 May 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense (he came up positive for cocaine on a unit urinalysis and went AWOL for over 20 days), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with 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. On 6 May 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and 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, 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 analyst found that 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 found that the characterization of service and the reason for discharge 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: 13 March 2007 Location: Dallas, TX Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: yes [ redacted ] Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted additional documents in support of his hearing. 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entries 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. Furthermore, the Board found that the narrative reason for discharge was inequitable. Regulations currently in effect list the reason for the applicant’s discharge as misconduct. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason on the DD Form 214 to misconduct. Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reason for separation, the Board found the reason for separation both proper and equitable. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Current Standards, "Misconduct" under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200 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: 23 March 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004130 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 pages