Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011583
Original file (AR20060011583.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 060810	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached 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: 010615
Discharge Received:     Date: 010718   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: A Battery, 2d Battalion, 8th Field Artilley, Fort Lewis, WA 98433-9500 

Time Lost: Applicant was apprehended and confined by civilian authorities for a total of 2 days (010219-010220) by the Kent County, WA, Police Department.  

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 001128/Failure to go at the time presribed to his appointed place of duty X 2 on or about (000929) and (000930), disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (CPL) on or about (000921), disrespectful in language and deportment to a noncommissioned officer (CPL), on or about (000921), and derelict in the performance of those duties by willfully failing to complete extra duties up to standard X 2 on or about (000921) and (001012)/(Company Grade) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  800203  
Current ENL Date: 990928    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 09Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 09Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 (Cannon Crewmember)   GT: 85   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 15 June 2001, 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 (failure to report on various occasions, disobeying of lawful orders on various occsions, disrespect towards an noncommissioned officer on various occasions, willful disobedience of lawful general regulations on various occasions, and dereliction of duty), with a general, under 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 and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 June 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged 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 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 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: 1 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, and voted to deny relief.





















Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
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 and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 14 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011583

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011719

    Original file (AR20060011719.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 7 January 2003, 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 (receiving a company grade Article 15 on 8 February 2002 for failing to report to duty; on 26 March 2002 the suspension of that Article 15 was vacated because of further misconduct; and receiving a field grade Article 15 on 26 November 2002 for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090009696

    Original file (AR20090009696.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 15 March 2006, 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 in that she falsely made the signature of one commissioned officer and two noncommissioned officers on official documents, falsely changed the dates on her leave form and was derelict in the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009991

    Original file (AR20070009991.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013029

    Original file (AR20060013029.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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. ...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016565

    Original file (AR20060016565.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 August 2006, the applicant was charged with one specification of leaving his appointed place of duty on or about 3 August 2006; two specifications of willfully disobeying a lawful order from a superior noncommissioned officer on or about 29 July 2006 and on or about 3 August 2006; two specifications of disrespect towards superior noncommissioned officers, on or about 29 July 2006 and on or about 3 August 2006. The analyst...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019123

    Original file (AR20090019123.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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. 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 based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008492

    Original file (AR20060008492.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 23 January 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008512

    Original file (AR20060008512.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 07Mos, 19Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 31 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007804

    Original file (AR20090007804.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 24 November 2008, 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—for being AWOL from 24 July 2008 until 25 September 2008, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090004323

    Original file (AR20090004323.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 20 June 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.