Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/11/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.  He contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one situation that ocurred during 3 1/2 years of service and no other adverse action.  He further contends receiving an AAM and an ARCOM during his enlistment.  

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: 101202
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110119   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, 1-75th Ranger Regt, Hunter Army Airfield, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant submitted a document with his application that indicated he received a summary Court-Martial; however, this document is not contained in the available record. It also appears the applicant was reduced to E-1 by the court-martial. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  25
Current ENL Date: 070802    Current ENL Term: 04  Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03  Yrs, 05  Mos, 18  Days ?????
Total Service:  		03  Yrs, 05  Mos, 18  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68V1V Health Care Spec    GT: 124   EDU: 3 Years College    Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Afghanistan (090828-091210)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, ACM-W/CS, ASR, CMB

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 3 November 2010, 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 wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Ms. DP, a married woman not his wife (091211); breaking a no contact order issued by his company commander by sending e-mail messages to Ms. DP (100626-100627); and dereliction of duty by plugging his ipod into a government networked computer,  with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.
       
       
       On 16 November 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  
       
       On 29 December 2010, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the, 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 the 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 his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one situation that ocurred during 3 1/2 years of service and no other adverse action.  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 his 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.
       
       The applicant further contends receiving an AAM and an ARCOM during his enlistment. The analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to overcome the reason for discharge and the characterization of service granted.
       
       Therefore, 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: 18 May 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA

 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (110812); Applicant's Statement, dated (101118); Memorandum; Summary-Court-Martial Pertaining to the Applicant, two (2) pages, dated (101105); News Article, Good Citizens, dated (080327); Certificate of Training, dated (0905080; Certificate of Graduation, dated (080627); two (2) Diplomas, Airborne Course, dated (080502), Ranger Course, dated (100430); three (3) DA Forms 638 (Recommendation for Award); two (2) pages, undated,  two (2) pages, dated (091007), dated (080403); two (2) AAM Citations, dated (080404); ARCOM Citation, dated (091118); two (2) DD Forms 214, dated (110119).     

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: None

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 AR20110022991
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages