Application Receipt Date: 060606	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293.

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: 930211
Discharge Received:     Date: 930604   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: HHC 154th Signal Bn APO AA 34004-500 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  690510  
Current ENL Date: 911206    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  06  Yrs, 03 Mos, 18 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-870217-900322/HD
                                      RA-900323-911205/HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 76C10 Equipment Receipt and Parts Spec   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany/Panama   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), AGCM, NDSM, AFEM, NCOPDR w/2, ASR, OSR (2), COT (2)
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 5 February 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (forgery and smuggling of cocaine), 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, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.   The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  The intermediate and senior commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 April 1993, the applicant voluntarily wavied 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.  On 6 May 1993, the separation authority disapproved the applicant's conditional waiver for a general discharge and referred his case to an administrative separation board.  On 10 May 1993, the board met, applicant was absent due to his civil confinement, however, counsel appeared on his behalf.  The board found that the applicant committed serious acts of misconduct, is not desireable for further military service, rehabilitation is not deemed possible, and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 May 1993, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board 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 had a CID Report of Investigation dated (29 June 1992) in his Official Military Personnel File (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 during the period of enlistment under review 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 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 analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 2 May 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.



















 

Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

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 May 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060008149

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages