Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/06/29	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect he would like to be able to take care of his family better and receive the GI Bill.  He was generally a good Soldier and had no issues till the last year of his enlistment; during which he had a lot of personal life issues.  He would appreciate the opportunity to achieve and then surpass his goals that he has set and be an excellent role model for his children.

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: Commander's memorandum undated
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040304   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Pattern of Misconduct)	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Headquarters and Company A, 225th Forward Support Battalion, Schofield Barracks, HI 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for a total of 29 days, (031015 - 031112), mode of return unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031205, without authority failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, first formation (030909); disrespectful toward CPL G, by saying to him “I’m not going to the field,” (030909); behaved with disrespect toward 2LT W, by saying to him “I’m not going to the field and was it,” (030909); without authority failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty, HQ & A Co, 1300 (030909); without authority absented himself from his unit at which he was required to be (031014 – 031113); failed to obey a lawful order issued by CPT S to not go off post and to wear either BDU’s or PT uniform during off duty hours (031014 – 031113); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $269.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, restricted to the limits of Schofield Barracks for 45 days,  (FG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: 011025    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2  Yrs, 4 Mos, 9   Days ?????
Total Service:  		4  Yrs, 4 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 990909 - 011024/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Specialist   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None




VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that 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 misconduct, for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for failure to report to his place of duty three times, being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer, being disrespectful to a commissioned officer, failure to obey a lawful order, receiving numerous counseling statements for disrespct to NCOs and commissioned officers, failure to report to his place of duty, and driving with an expired license, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 9 January 2003, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board (was not entitled) and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge 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 applicant’s available military records, the issues and documents 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 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 mitigating circumstances contributed to his misconduct; specifically, family issues contributed to his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his family issues were the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from stress through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.
       
       Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's employment issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
             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.  
       
        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: 18 January 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Mr. John E. Ward, 1925 Prospect Street, East Jacksonville, FL 32254

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, letter of support, character reference, Criminal Background Check from Jacksonville Sheriff Department and a DD Form 214

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: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
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 AR20110014338
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages