Application Receipt Date: 061031	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293. 

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: 030711
Discharge Received:     Date: 030814   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: Battery C, 2nd Battalion, 80th Field Artillery, TR TC, Fort Sill, OK 73503-5100 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030416-Unlawfully pushed and grabbed a PVT with his hands (030404), forfeiture of $575.00; suspended, 30 days restriction, 15 days suspended, reduction to PVT/E1, (Field Grade).

030311-Failure to report (030303); reduction to PVT/E1, suspended, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty, (Company Grade). 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier's Overall Record
DOB:  
Current ENL Date: 020411    Current ENL Term: 5 Years       
Current ENL Service: 01  Yrs, 04 Mos, 04 Days      
Total Service:  01  Yrs, 04 Mos, 04 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: NIF   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 11 July 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct (since his arrival at Charlie Battery, his confrontational attitude has proven to be a detractor both in the platoon and within the classroom.  Numerous times the command has had to deal with complaints from other Soldiers about his aggressive and challenging manner.  His poor attitude and lack of motivation and interest resulted in an academic review board being held in January 2003, to determine if he should remain in training.  The results of this board required him to be enrolled in anger management classes.  These classes have proven to be ineffective due to him having a confrontation with a fellow Soldier.  This incident resulted in a Field Grade Article 15 for assault.  He also received a Company Grade Article 15 for missing formation.  He was sent to the Patroit Battery in an attempt at rehabilitation.  He completed the program satisfactorily, but the next month he again caused a disruption in his class at Poolaw Hall.  He was counseled by the senior instructor who recommended another academic review board and his removal from the Firefinder Radar Repairer Course.  All of these incidents have shown an utter lack of respect for the rules and regulations of the United States Army and demonstrated that he lacks the values required of a Soldier and his discharge is warranted), with a general, under 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 did not submit 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.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable 

      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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge, and therefore recommends that relief be denied in this case.  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. Furthermore, if the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.
      
VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 13 December 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

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 0    No change 5   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - Reason
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  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.
Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 

CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 17 December 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060015412

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 6 pages