Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/03/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states: "At the time before my discharge I received an injury while training. I tried many time to bring this to the attention of my commanders and drill sergeants. When they took me to the hospital to check for my injuries the doctors could not see a problem with my back. I was returned to duty and continued to complain about my back. My superiors thought I was not willing to train, so they tagged me as a trouble maker and gave me articles's for any reason they could in order to remove me from the military. However I ran into a doctor that wanted to try a MRI on my back instead of a regular  X Ray. They discovered a bulged disked in my back that could not be seen on a X Ray. Now I live with constant pain because I continued to train on the injury. That injury is going to affect me for the rest of my life because I'm going to need surgery this year to fix my back. Due to the fact I had 3 article's , all of which are minor offences I was discharges with a misconduct label. I wish to correct this in order to move on with my life and to prove I am not a trouble maker, I did serve my country Honorably and I still serve it today when I'm unable to walk. I am currently disabled because of that injury and it is a further insult to have this on my record. All claims that I have said today are well documented with the VA and my service connected disability documentation."

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: 030724
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030807   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: E Co, 309th MI Bn, Fort Huachuca, AZ  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030313, Disobeying a lawful order (030311), extra duty for 7 days and restriction for 7 days, Summarized Article 15.

030401, Disobeying a lawful order (030329), extra duty for 7 days and restriction for 7 days, Summarized Article 15.

030528, Disobeying a lawful order (030511), making a false statement (030511), and disrespectful in language toward a noncommissioned officer (030513), punishment was not found in availabe record, (CG).  

030624, Disobeying a lawful order (030523), forfeiture of $268.00 pay per month for one month; extra duty for 14 days; and restriction for 14 days, (CG).  Continuation sheet was not found in available records.  

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 020919    Current ENL Term: 05 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 19 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E1		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 108   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Santa Barbara, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 24 July 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 having failed to obey a lawful general order x 5, failed to obey a lawful order, disrespect to a noncommissioned officer, and making a false offical statement x 2, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 24 July 2003, the applicant waived his right to consult 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 conditions.

       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; 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the documents, and issues 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 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.
       
       The applicant contends that he received an injury while on active duty and now lives with constant pain because he continued to train on the injury and that he is currently disabled because of that injury.  The analyst noted the applicant contentions; however, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant issue that his offenses were minor.  However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       Furthermore, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       In view of the foregoing, 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: 7 October 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Online application and DD Form 214 for the period of service under review.

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







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 AR20110005217
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages