Application Receipt Date: 060815	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he wants to further his education and get a degree so he can provide for his family.  

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: 050330
Discharge Received:     Date: 050620   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Detachment, 18th Personnel Services Battalion, LSA Anaconda, Iraq, APO AE  09391 

Time Lost: None

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

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050330, Summary Court-Martial for conspiracy to steal mail and receiving stolen property.  He was sentenced to confinement for one month, and reduction to Private (E-1)

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  801015  
Current ENL Date: 010208    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 4 Yrs, 4 Mos, 13 Days The applicant was retained in the service 134 days, for the convenience of the Government per Title 10 USC 12305.
Total Service:  4 Yrs, 4 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42L10 Administrative Specialist   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia (exact dates-NIF)   Combat: Iraq
Decorations/Awards: AAM, GCMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, C/Ach 
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 March 2005, 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 (for conspiracy to steal mail and for knowingly receiving stolen property), 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, unconditionally waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board per his offer to plead guilty (hereinafter "OTPG), dated 17 January 2005, and submitted 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 16 April 2005, 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.  
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      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.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 8 August 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 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. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: N/A
Other: N/A
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: N/A

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

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

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON				DATE: 22 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060011673

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages