Application Receipt Date: 060927 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 050223 Discharge Received: Date: 050316 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: HHT, 4th Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regement, Fort Carson, CO Time Lost: NONE Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 2005/01/03. Field Grade Art 15 for wrongfully using cocaine, methamphetamines, and amphetamines (040905-040907) and wrongfully using marijuiana (040808-040907). Reduction to E1, forfeiture of $597 for two months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NONE Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 820929 Current ENL Date: 020416 Current ENL Term: 3 Years Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 01Days Total Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 01Days Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92G10 Food Service Spec GT: 91 EDU: HS Overseas: Southeast Asia Combat: Iraq (030317-040317) Decorations/Awards: NDSM; GWOTSM; ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Post Service Accomplishments: None VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 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 - commision of a serious offense for wrongfully using amphetamines and methamphetamines on two occasions and wrongfully using cocaine, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her 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 5 February 2004, 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, 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 she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.” If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. Additionally, 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 analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 December 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation The Board carefully examined the available records for the period of enlistment under review. 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. Barring evidence to the contrary, the Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: David Loy, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 12 December 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder