Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013013
Original file (AR20060013013.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Application Receipt Date: 060912	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 930827   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct-Commission Of A Serious Offense
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: C Company, 106th Military Intelligence Battalion, 6th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Richardson, AK 99703-5000 

Time Lost: None

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

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): Special Court Martial/930518-False swearing x 2, (921013) and (921123), failure to obey a lawful general order x 3, (921115), on or between (920913 and 921115), and (920913 and 921231).  The applicant was reduced to the grade of E-1; forfeiture of $500.00 pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  701217  
Current ENL Date: 890816    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 00 Mos, 12 Days The applicant's ETS was adjusted to make up lost time due to 3 months confinement as a result of his special court-martial.  
Total Service:  04  Yrs, 00 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31C1P Single Channel Radio Operator   GT: 122   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record:
Address:
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that 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 (found guilty of two specifications of false statements, and three specifications of violating a general order by a special court-martial), 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 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst noted that the unit commander used “Board Procedures” when notifying the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct.  By using “Board Procedures” the authority for approval of the applicant’s separation rested with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority.  The evidence of record shows that someone other than the General Court-Martial Convening Authority approved the applicant’s discharge.  In view of the foregoing, the discharge was improper.  Accordingly, relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority is recommended to the Board.  This action does not entail a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code; however, the Board can consider it. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 24 October 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: 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: 2 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013013

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060004813

    Original file (AR20060004813.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. On 12 August 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011669

    Original file (AR20060011669.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 00Mos, 22Days ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060017266

    Original file (AR20060017266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 10 Mos, 16 Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority is recommended to the Board.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060007398

    Original file (AR20060007398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 6 July 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—pattern of misconduct (disrespect to a noncommissioned officer on 16 March 2005, disobeying a noncommissioned officer on 17 March 2005, and failure to be at his appointed place of duty on 23 May 2005), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008150

    Original file (AR20060008150.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008903

    Original file (AR20060008903.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 15 December 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—misconduct minor disciplinary infractions (receiving a Article 15 for leaving his appointed place of duty, disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, violating the cellular phone policy, making a false official statement to a noncommissioned officer, and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012075

    Original file (AR20060012075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 06Mos, 15Days ????? 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: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 20 September 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006361

    Original file (AR20060006361.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 08Mos, 21Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 30 May 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—commission of a serious offense (testing positive for cocaine on 30 April 2003), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060012266

    Original file (AR20060012266.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 05 Yrs, 05 Mos, 00 Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 3 August 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—abuse of illegal drugs (tested positive for illegal use of drugs (marijuana), between on or about 25 May 1998 and 25 June 1998), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Certification Signature and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014476

    Original file (AR20060014476.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 11Mos, 16Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst noted that the unit commander used “Board Procedures” when notifying the applicant that he was...