Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/22	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: The applicant states that when he joined the Army he was physically fit and in good health.  He says that after leaving the service the Veterans Administration diagnosed him with bi-polar disorder for which he is receiving disability.  His fiancée had a car accident in 2002 and she lost their baby.  This caused him lots of stress; he further states that he was not allowed to go on leave.  The platoon sergeant told him that Korean women were “sluts” and this sent him “over the edge” and from here on all his problems started.  

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: 030707
Discharge Received:     Date: 030910   
Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: C/304th Signal Bn, APO AP 96205 

Time Lost: 14 days, AWOL (030428-030511), apprehended by the Yongsan Military Police and released to his unit

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in file; however, the record indicates the applicant was reduced to E-2 (020306)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  820318  
Current ENL Date: 010222    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06 Mos, 05 Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 06 Mos, 05 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31R10/Multichannel Systems Operator   GT: 116   EDU: HS   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR
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:
The evidence of record shows that on 7 July 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 for failure to obey lawful orders, failure to report to duty or appointments on time on different ocassions, insubordination toward NCOs, failure to obey regulations, disrespect toward NCOs, and for being AWOL (030428-030511), 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 4 August 2003, 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that he has bi-polar disorder; however, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that his discharge was the result of any medical condition.  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: 26 October 2007              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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: Alejandro Champin, 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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 28 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013474

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 5 pages