Application Receipt Date: 060407 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant stated "My discharge was inequitable because it is hindering me from receiving therapy for my drug addiction." 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: 960826 Discharge Received: Date: 961107 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct-Abuse of Illegal Drugs RE: SPD: JKK Unit/Location: Medical Troop, Regimental Support Squadron, 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Polk, LA 71459 Time Lost: AWOL for a total of 19 days from (960702-960710) and (960713-960722)/The applicant returned to his unit in both circumstances. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960326-Wrongfully used marijuana on or between (960131-960220)/Field Grade 2nd Article 15: 960620-Wrongfully used marijuana on or between (960415-960506)/Field Grade Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 731207 Current ENL Date: 930819 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 2 Mos, 0 Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 2 Mos, 0 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31U10, Signal Support Specialist GT: 96 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, ASR, NDSR 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 26 August 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct - (he received two article 15s on (960313) and (960530), for wrongfully using marijuana; he was counseled on (960529) for failue to report (five specifications); he was counseled on (960619) for two specifications of AWOL; he was counseled on (960602), (960610) and (960611) for failure to report )- with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 26 August 1996, the applicant consulted legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 28 August 1996, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 11 September 1996, the senior intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The unit commander subsequently notified the applicant of initiation of separation action a second time, under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense. However, the second unit commander's initiation letter is not in the available records and the analyst is presuming government regularity in the discharge process. On 20 September 1996, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and voluntarilly waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board, contingent upon receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 15 October 1996, after reconsidering his conditional waiver, the applicant withdrew his conditional waiver, and requested to be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 1 November 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than 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 an honorable or general 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 recommend that the Board vote to deny relief in this case. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 7 February 2007 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable. The Board determined that the overall length of the applicant's service and the time that has elapsed since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: 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: 9 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060005268 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages