Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/13 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. (1). He has not had any issues prior or since this isolated incident. (2). To his knowledge had not direct contact with any substance. (3). Believes that the urinalysis test was positive because an aunt cooked items with the substance in it without his knowledge. (4). His aunt wrote a statement about her visit and her mental state at the time. (5). He was aware of his aunt's extended history of prescription drug use, but was unaware of her illegal drug use prior to this situation. (6). Does not believe that his case was reviewed properly, because if it was he would still be an Army Officer based on issues 1-5. 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: GD Date: 060518 Discharge Received: Date: 060726 Chapter: 4-2b AR: 600-8-24 Reason: Unacceptable Conduct RE: SPD: JNC Unit/Location: HHSB, 6-32nd FA (MLRS), Fort Sill, OK Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060223, wrongfully using marijuana (051226-060117); forfeiture of $1,208 pay x 1 month (GO). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 23 Current ENL Date: 050512 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 15Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 01Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-041026-050511/NA Highest Grade: 0-1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 74A Chemical General GT: NA EDU: BA (Liberal Arts) Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Fredericksburg, VA Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 March 2006, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b(10), AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct. The applicant was directed to show cause for his retention on active duty for wrongfully using marijuana (051217-060117). He was advised that he could submit a written rebuttal, resignation in lieu of elimination, request discharge in lieu of elimination, or submit a declination statement. On 27 February 2006, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, in lieu of further elimination proceedings. The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to a Board of Inquiry. On 18 May 2006, the Commander, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK, recommended approval of the applicant's separation action under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 5 July 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation , dated 3 February 2006. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets for the basic authority for Officer Transfers and discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the eliminating of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and the interest of national security. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's military records during the term of service under review, the issues submitted with the application, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of unacceptable conduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by Army Officers. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Further, by his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Issue (1) Rejected. Even though an isolated incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by an isolated incident provides the basis for a characterization. The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's isolated incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. This isolated incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Issue (2) Rejected. The applicant's positive urinalysis test was a result of the command’s random urine testing program to maintain good order and discipline within the unit. The applicant did not raise this as an issue at the time he received a General Officer Article 15 for wrongdfully using marijuana. Issues (3-5) Rejected. These issues are not a matter on which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion relating to the discharge process nor is it associated with the discharge at the time of issuance. Issue (6) Rejected. The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, 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: 12 July 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: [redacted] 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, hearing his testimony 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 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 AR20090012570 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages