Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/08 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant. 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: 040823 Discharge Received: Date: 040922 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: 10th MP Co, Fort Drum, NY Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040209, while in Kandahar, Afghanistan, disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer (date not in file), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $312.00 (suspended) (CG) 040716, disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer not to possess fireworks (040706), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $278 (suspended), 14 days extra duty and restriction (CG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 020903 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 00Mos, 20Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 00Mos, 20Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31U10/Signal Spt Sys Spc GT: 111 EDU: 1 YR COLL Overseas: SWA Combat: Afghanistan (030816-040507) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Las Vegas, NV 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 August 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct —for being disrespectful to a non-commissioned officer (030913), for losing accountability of his assigned weapon (031005), for disobeying a lawful order (040120), for failure to report on 5 different occasions, for being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer by calling him a “dude”, and for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer not to possess fireworks (040706), with a general under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 24 August 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in 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 a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 7 September 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged 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. Chapter 14 of this regulation 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, however, a general 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 no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former soldier’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the several incidents of misconduct, which include the possession of fireworks, 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 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: 13 May 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080012696 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages