Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/04	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, he believes his discharge should have been an Honorable Discharge instead of a General Discharge.

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: 991117
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000108   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Company, 32nd Signal Battalion, 22nd Signal Brigade, Darmstadt, GE 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990928, AWOL (990810-990907); failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 3 (990617, 990619, and 981203); dereliction in the performance of his duties (990616); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $479.00 x 2 (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (FG)

991012, suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $479.00 x 2 was vacated for a new failed to go to appointed place of duty offense (991007)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 971105    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 04 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 04 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31R10 Multi Channel Systems Operator   GT: 109   EDU: HS Degree   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 17 November 1999, 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 AWOL until apprehended (991001); dereliction of his duties; failure to be at his appointed place of duty x 4; vacation of suspension (991012); receiving a Company Grade Article 15, and numerous counseling, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       On 24 November 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, the applicant's conditional waiver request is not contained in the available record.  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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 21 December 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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 all the applicant’s military records, the analyst determined that the discharge is improper.  
       
       The evidence of record shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The analyst noted that an administrative separation board is a right and required under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, and the record reflects that the applicant did not receive an administrative separation board.  The analyst determined that denial of an administrative separation board constituted a prejudicial error to the rights of the applicant and the discharge is improper.  
       
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends to the Board that relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. This action does not entail a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code; however, the Board can consider it.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 25 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and 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 and is improper.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and had over 6 years of total active and reserve military service at the time of initiation of separation action.  The Board noted that an administrative separation board is a right and required under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, and the record reflects that the applicant did not receive an administrative separation board and did not waive it.  The Board determined that denial of an administrative separation board constituted a prejudicial error to the rights of the applicant and the discharge is improper.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 5    No change 0
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to:  Secretarial Authority under Provisions of Chapter 5, AR 635-200, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of “JFF”
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 AR20110020043
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages