Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/27 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he served over ten years on active duty and two tours in Iraq. He is currently attending a four year University. 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: 101014 Discharge Received: Date: 110427 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: 511th Engineer Company, 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Sustainment Brigade (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Campbell, KY Time Lost: Confined by the civilian authorities (110403-110427), 25 days. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100924, failed to go to his appointed place of duty (100823), found drunk on duty (100823), reduction to Specialist (E-4), forfeiture of $1146.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: Reenl/081126 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 2 Days ????? Total Service: 11 Yrs, 2 Mos, 2 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 000226-000808/NA RA 000809-030614/HD RA 030615-081125/HD Highest Grade: E-5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec GT: 103 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq x 2 (030319-040210), (071207-090305) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (4), GCMDL (3), NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICMw/2 CS, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR (2), VUA V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue that he is attending a university; however, he did not submit any supporting documents. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 14 October 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he was found drunk on duty (100823) and was arrested for driving under the influence (100529), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 20 October 2010, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 26 October 2010, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 1 November 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. On 8 June 2010, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for violating the Implied Consent Law when he refused to submit to an intoximeter test in the state of Tennessee on 29 May 2010, (Administrative). 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 all the applicant’s military records and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined that 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 the 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. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he served over ten years on active duty and two tours in Iraq. He is currently attending a four year University. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The analyst concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. Further, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's accomplishment he stated on his DD Form 293 (i.e., attending a university) since his separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, this accomplishment does not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief. 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: 22 August 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 1 February 2012, copy of his DD Form 214 dated 27 April 2011. 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III 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 AR20120004244 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages