Application Receipt Date: 060509	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of equity or propriety to be considered by the Board.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: 991027
Discharge Received:     Date: 991203   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: B Battery, 3/29th Field Artillery, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Carson, CO  80913 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The unit commander's recommendation to separate the applicant indicates he received an Article 15, and was reduced to a Pvt/E2; however, it is not part of the available records.  

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  750425  
Current ENL Date: 980318    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 31 August 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (failed to repair on numerous occassions, failed to pay just debts to his wife, u-haul, autosound, dominoe's, charge-jewelers. and Alvarado Apartments), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge 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 discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 24 November 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  
      
      The applicant has a Military Police Report dated (990517) in his OMPF
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 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, but a general discharge 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, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  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 his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general 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.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 7 March 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      	Change     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (Reason)
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board found that the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to PV2/E-2.   



















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: None
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: PV2/E-2

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 9 March 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060006711

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages