Application Receipt Date: 070322 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 011203/Records Review I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 991222 Discharge Received: Date: 010627 Chapter: 14 AR: 600-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKD Unit/Location: C Company 2nd Battalion, 19th Infantry Battalion, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: Absent without Leave (AWOL) a total of 53 days; 25 days (990621-990715), 5 days (991007-991011), and 23 days (991024-991115). The applicant surrended to military authorties all three time at Fort Benning, GA, however, after returning from the last period of AWOL the applicant was transferred to Fort Knox, KY. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: Current ENL Date: 990203 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 03Mos, 02Days (Includes 553 days of excess leave 991223-010627) Total Service: 02 Yrs, 03Mos, 02Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 95 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Completed the Commercial Drivers- CDL "A" Course with Smith and Solomon Driver Training School. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 22 December 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (going AWOL from on or about 21 June 1999 to on or about 16 July 1999, 7 October 1999 to on about 12 October 1999, and 24 October 1999 to on or about 16 November 1999), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement on his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 14 June 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and that he be reduced to private/E1. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, documents, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 military personnel. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Therefore, 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: 15 October 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: ????? Witnesses/Observers: ????? Exhibits Submitted: ????? VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change ????? No change ????? - Character Change ????? No change ????? - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation ????? Case report reviewed and verified by: , Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: ????? Other: ????? RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 19 October 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE