Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 070725 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. 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: 940407 Discharge Received: Date: 940513 Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200 Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure RE: SPD: JPD Unit/Location: C Co, 4/22d Inf, Fort Lewis, WA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940503, Failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (940324), and drunk on duty X 2 (940301 and 940405), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $416.00 pay per month for 1 month, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction, (FG). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 1972/06 HOR City, State: El Paso, TX Current ENL Date: 921110 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 06Mos, 04Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 06Mos, 04Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10/Infantryman GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 21 March 1994, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 7 April 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure, 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. On 19 April 1994, 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 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service. However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted use information is used in the discharge process. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful examination of all the applicant's military records for the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case. The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program. As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems. The analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Furthermore, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. Additionally, 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. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 25 July 2008 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 1 No change 4 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. 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: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 31 July 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070010419 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages