Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2011/11/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was improper.  His mental health record memorandum, dated 12 February 2001, stated that he should have an Honorable Discharge; his recruiter knew that he had Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) with Hyperactivity and had been on medication for eight years, but advised him not to volunteer that information at his MEPS; and there were no questions asked pertaining to his diagnosis.  During Basic Training and Airborne Training, he received numerous badges and medals; he was the Enlisted Honor Graduate of his airborne class; he was a good Soldier and proud to be a member of the 82nd Airborne; and his ADHD and subsequent depression became an issue when he completed his trainings.  Without the structure and excitement of training, he was unable to settle into military life.  His ADHD and increased immaturity resulted in impulsive decision making and inappropriate actions.  He regrets his actions, but he was unable, at the time, to make mature and well thought-out decisions, as evidenced by the Article 15 that he received for disrespect and “straggling.”  He did complete the punishment as imposed.  He concludes that regardless of his immaturity and ADHD diagnosis, he was a successful Soldier and he worked hard during his trainings.  He just was not able to handle the Fort Bragg assignment.

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: Undated
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020604   Chapter: 7    AR: 635-200
Reason: Fraudulent Entry	   RE:     SPD: JDA   Unit/Location: C Co, 1st Bn, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020320, assaulted an NCO (020225) by swinging at him with his fist; disrespectful in deportment toward an NCO (020207); wrongfully straggle while on foot-march with his unit (020207), reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $250 x 2 months; 45-day extra duty and restriction, (FG) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 010524    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 00 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR (001025-010523) / NA
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B (Infantryman)   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ASR

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 in an undated memorandum, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 7, AR 635-200, by reason of fraudulent entry for failure to include information regarding his hyperactive attention deficit disorder, in order to meet the criteria required to enter the Armed Forces, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.   He was advised of his rights.  
       
       The applicant waived legal counsel, and indicated he understood the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf .  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       In an undated memorandum, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection.  This includes all disqualifying information requiring a waiver.  A Soldier who concealed his or her conviction by civil court of a felonious offense normally will not be considered for retention.  Soldiers separated under this Chapter may be awarded an honorable discharge, or a general, under honorable conditions discharge, or a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  If in an entry level status the characterization will be uncharacterized. 

       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 application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to disclose during the enlistment process information regarding his hyperactive attention deficit disorder, in order to meet the criteria required to enlist, and was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, AR 635-200, by reason of fraudulent entry.
       
       The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Fraudulent Entry” and the separation code is "JDA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 
       
       The applicant contends that his discharge was improper.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention that he was unjustly discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s  Article 15, and numerous negative counseling statements documenting his misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and he provided no documentation or further evidence in support of his request for an upgrade his discharge.  The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and 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 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: 16 May 2012         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 20 November 2011; Memorandum for Record by the Division Mental Health Clinic, dated 12 February 2002; Memorandum, dated 12 October 2001, subejct: Enlisted Honor Graduate; DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ), dated 20 March 2002

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: NA
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 AR20110023671
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages