Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/07/25	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, “I have changed and would like to better myself.  I have not been in any trouble since I got out.”

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: 041029
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041116   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Company, 46 Engineers, 1st Battalion, 210th Aviation Regiment, 1st Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, AL 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1(040525 - 040604) and Civilian Confinement x 1 (040923 - 041004) for a total of 20 days, mode of return unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040618, without authority absented herself from her unit and did remain so absent (040525 – 040604), reduction E-2, forfeiture of half months pay $669.00 for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (041214), 45 days extra duty, 45 days restriction; (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: 020312    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2  Yrs, 7 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2  Yrs, 7 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21W10 Carpentry and Masonry Specialist   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030205 - 030707)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 October 2004, 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 counseling for failure to report, failure to be at place of duty, failure to notify chain of command of whereabouts, failure to follow instructions, failure to meet financial obligations, writing bad checks, disobeying a lawful order of noncommissioned officer, failure to appear in Court, disrespect to a noncommissioned officer, AWOL, failure to complete corrective actions, and disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board (was not entitled) and did not submit a statement in her 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.  
       
       On 4 November 2004, 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life by staying out of trouble and her desire to better herself.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Additionally, 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: 22 February 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement 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 AR20110015463
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages