Application Receipt Date: 060726	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents.

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: 040727
Discharge Received:     Date: 041201   
Chapter: 8-26e (2)    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Acts or Patterns of Misconduct 
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: 83rd Troop Command, Tallahassee, FL 32311-3599 

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:  651222  
Current ENL Date: 930417    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ext 5 years (980314)
Current ENL Service: 11  Yrs, 07 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  20 Yrs, 09 Mos, 00 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: USAR-840302-850523/NA
                                      ADT-850524-850724/UNC
                                      USAR-850725-930416/NA
                                      ARNG930417-041201/UOTHC
                                              (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E7
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman/75H10 Personnel Services Spec/SGT   GT: 111   EDU: 14 Years   Overseas: Panama/Costa Rica/Egypt   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (4), JSAM, AAM, AGCM (2), ARCAM (3), NDSM, HSM, AFRM, NCOPDR w/3, ASR, ARCOTR (4)
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 21 July 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 12-1, AR135-178, and paragraph 8-26e (2), NGR 600-200, by reason of misconduct—acts or patterns of misconduct (violation of NGR 600-5, paragraphs 6-5(c)1, inappropriate professional and person conduct and 6-5(c)2, moral or professional dereliction, as substantiated in the AR 15-6 investigation report of findings and recommendations, dated 2 September 2003), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant's election of rights are not contained in the available record and Government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  Furthermore, the applicant was recommended for an under other than honorable conditions discharge, therefore, he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board.  However, the findings and recommendation of the board are not a part of the available records and Government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority's documentation approving the separation action and directing that the applicant be discharged with a characetrization of service of under other than honorable conditions is not authenicated by his signature, and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. 
      
      The applicant has an AR 15-6 Investigation in his Official Military Personnel File dated 2 September 2003.  

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.  Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army.  The regulation defines misconduct by reason of one or more of the following:  minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs, and conviction by civil authorities.

      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 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 remains both proper and equitable.  

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 15 August 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 0    No change 5   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - 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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON				DATE: 10 September 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060010457

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages