Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/06 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. The applicant was placed in a struggling new recovery and rehabilitation center with poorly supervised night staff. The applicant had no opportunity to overcome his problems. The Fort Irwin ASAP has stopped using this facility and it has since closed after many complaints and heavy staff turnovers. 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: 071204 Discharge Received: Date: 080110 Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200 Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure RE: SPD: JPD Unit/Location: 557th Maintenance Co (Rear), Corps Support Bn, Support Bde, Ft. Irwin, CA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF The analyst noted that there are no Article 15’s in the applicant's file. The analyst further noted that in the commander's memorandum to the commander of the support brigade, he lists a company grade Article 15 dated 29 June 2007 for disobeying/disrespecting a commissioned officer, reduction to E3, forfeiture of $403 of basic pay (suspended) and extra duty for 14 days. Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 24 Current ENL Date: 050714 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 2 weeks Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 08Mos, 25Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 000922-031220/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B10 Wheeled Vehicle Mech GT: 78 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is currently enrolled in a rehabilitation treatment program. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record indicates that on 4 December 2007, the unit commander declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 4 December 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of 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 Army. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 13 December 2007, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The analyst noted the Applicant had an Administrative Waiver dated 11 June 2005 in the file to enable him to enlist. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel 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, under honorable conditions 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 the applicant’s military records, the issue and documents submitted with the application the analyst determined that the discharge is inequitable. 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 the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was placed in an approved Army Drug Abuse Prevention and Control contract facility that was a new struggling recovery and rehabilitation center with poorly supervised night staff. The applicant had no opportunity to overcome his problems. Other Soldiers in this same center had the same issues. The Fort Irwin ASAP has stopped using this facility and it has since closed after many complaints and heavy staff turnovers. The applicant was not provided a chance to enroll in a properly staffed and supervised Drug Abuse Prevention and Control contract facility. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the discharge is inequitable in that the former Soldier was not provided the proper rehabilitation, education and support to return to serve in the Army. If the applicant had been provided an opportunity to be enrolled in a properly staffed and supervised Drug Abuse Prevention and Control contract facility it is possible that he could have returned to the Army to fulfill his enlistment and or possibly to serve to a full retirement. The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service, his prior honorable discharge and the medical circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable, the reason for discharge be changed to Secretarial Authority and the reentry code be changed to RE1. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 April 2010 Location: Washinton, 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 1 No change 4 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090012297 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages