Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 149 submitted by the applicant in lieu of a DD Form 293. 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: 930315 Discharge Received: Date: 930924 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKM Unit/Location: Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 6th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Richardson, AL 99505-5000 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: 25 Current ENL Date: Reenl/910522 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 4 Mos, 3 Days ????? Total Service: 5 Yrs, 11 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 870930-910521/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10 Infantryman GT: 82 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Alaska (920225-930924) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2), AAM (2), GCMDL, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 15 March 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct; in that he had no intention of trying to change his attitude or his treatment toward his spouse; he was titled with domestic disturbance on many occasions and continued to be a problem within his unit and on the post, 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, and understood that if he was being recommended for an under other than honorable conditions discharge, he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board or he could submit a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. However, the applicant's statement is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. 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 16 June 1993, an administrative separation board was appointed to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Further, the evidence of record does not show whether the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board, nor does it show that an administrative separation board was held, and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. On 17 September 1993, 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. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The record contains an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 28 February 1993. 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 the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found a mitigating factor that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. While the applicant's misconduct was a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst determined that the applicant's offenses were mitigated by the overall length and quality of the applicant's service. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that partial relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 April 2009 Location: Washington, 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SPC/E-4 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080011214 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages