Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/02 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 061004 Discharge Received: Date: 061012 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 362nd Engr Co, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 17 Current ENL Date: 040825 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 01Mos, 18Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 01Mos, 18Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 21C10/Bridge Crewmember GT: 110 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he is currently a full-time student at Hillsborough Community College. Additionally, he states " I have been able to successfully kick my addiction to marijuana, and have been able to do so for over a year". VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 7 July 2006, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana at or near Fort Benning, GA, between on or about 23 April 2006 and 23 May 2006. On 3 October 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. Further, the applicant indicated that he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 5 October 2006, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue he submitted, the characterization of service is improper. The analyst noted that the government introduced into the discharge packet the results of a biochemical test that was part of the applicant’s Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. This is limited use information as defined in Chapter 6, AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of a fully honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. Furthermore, the applicant was discharged under provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 and appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4.” An RE code of “4” cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment. However, the analyst found that the reason for discharge and the RE code were fully supported by the record and therefore, remain both proper and equitable. ???? ? VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 5 October 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None 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, and hearing his testimony, the Board noted that the government introduced the results of a biochemical test that was part of the applicant’s Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) treatment plan. This is limited use information as defined in Chapter 6, AR 600-85. Use of this information mandates award of a fully honorable discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the board found that the reason for discharge and the RE code were fully supported by the record and voted not to change them. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 5 No change 0 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090006463 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages