Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/02 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant 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? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 960903 Discharge Received: Date: 960923 Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200 Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure RE: SPD: JPD Unit/Location: C Btry, 5-2 FA Bn, Fort Sill, OK Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 940414 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 10Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 10Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember GT: 87 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Cuba Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFEM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: New York, NY Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record indicates that on 19 June 1996, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 3 September 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of alcohol /drug rehabilitation failure/ADAPCP 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, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. On 16 September 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant's record contains two Blotter Reports dated 24 November 1995 and 16 June 1996. 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 29 July 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080015304 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages