Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | AR20120000075
Original file (AR20120000075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/12/27	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 misconduct was a single incident during 53 months of service with no other adverse action.  He further contends being an outstanding Soldier during the 53 months and made rank fast.  He also contends that despite trying to convince the battalion commander of his previous record he was still discharged.    

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: 100512
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100615   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: C Co, 2-325th IN Bn (ABN), Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 091209, on divers occasions wrongfully and without authority wear upon his uniform the Ranger Tab between ( 090727-090831); reduction E-4, forfeiture of $1063 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days and restriction for 45 days (suspended), (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 081223    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  The Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) shows an expiration of term of service (ETS) as (121222).
Current ENL Service: 	01  Yrs, 05  Mos, 23  Days ?????
Total Service:  		04  Yrs, 08  Mos, 10  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-051006-081222/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B1P Infantryman   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (080309-090309), (060701-061108)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/CS-3, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, CIB 

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 12 May 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for wrongfully and without authority wearing a Ranger Tab on his uniform, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.
         
       On 18 May 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service 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 21 May 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 issue 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 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 misconduct was a single incident during 53 months of service with no other adverse action.  Even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.
       
       The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 
       
       The applicant further contends being an outstanding Soldier during 53 months of service and made rank fast. 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 warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge under review.
       
       The applicant also contends that despite trying to convince the battalion commander of his previous record he was still discharged.  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 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: 1 June 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (110823); DD Form 214, dated (100616); and a Letter, Chief, Case Management Division, dated (111215).

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 1    No change 4
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 AR20120000075
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009450

    Original file (AR20090009450.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 21 November 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120007600

    Original file (AR20120007600.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 9 March 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions?????

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100016105

    Original file (AR20100016105.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007720

    Original file (AR20090007720.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's separation authority and the separation code, 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110024329

    Original file (AR20110024329.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 24 November 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because his quality of service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013356

    Original file (AR20060013356.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/08 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110022225

    Original file (AR20110022225.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 29 June 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, unless recommended for an under, other than honorable discharge, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 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 issue...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110022991

    Original file (AR20110022991.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100026900

    Original file (AR20100026900.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 March 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he tested positive for marijuana on (100216), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110022649

    Original file (AR20110022649.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 110523 Discharge Received: Date: 110629 Chapter: 14, SEC II AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Civil Conviction) RE: SPD: JKB Unit/Location: B Company, 296th BSB, Fort Lewis, WA Time Lost: Civil Confinement for 4 days (101205-101208). On 7 June 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.