Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/11/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was given four years ago because of an alcohol problem. He has corrected this problem and would like to put this behind him. He is hoping to finish school and possibly reenlist at a later date. He recently completed rehabilitation and he is ready to get his life squared away. 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: 070413 Discharge Received: Date: 070516 Chapter: 9 AR: 635-200 Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure RE: SPD: JPD Unit/Location: F Co 526 BSB (FSC 2-502 IN), Fort Campbell, KY 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: 18 Current ENL Date: 060801 Current ENL Term: 04 Years 29 weeks Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 09 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 09 Mos, 16 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B10 Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic GT: 111 EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: Completed alcohol rehabilitation VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record indicates that on 6 March 2007, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 12 April 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 discharges. He was advised of his rights. On 12 April 2007, 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 8 May 2007, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant’s discharge 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 and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for alcohol or 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 all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) 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 applicant contends his discharge was given four years ago because of an alcohol problem, he has corrected this problem and would like to put this behind him. He recently completed rehabilitation and he is ready to get his life squared away. The analyst noted the applicant’s issue about his request for an upgrade based on the time that has elapsed since his discharge and the completion of the Rehabilitation Services. However, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since the discharge or completion of rehabilitation. Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the OMPF or as submitted by the applicant. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. Furthermore, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Moreover, the applicant contends that he is hoping to finish school and possibly reenlist at a later date. However, at the time of discharge the applicant was 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. Additionally, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined 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: 4 May 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and DD Form 214, 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 Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder ????? 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 AR20110022648 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages