Application Receipt Date: 061016	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 010511   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: A Battery, 1st Battalion, 94th Field Artillery (MLRS/TA), 1st Armored Division, APO AE 09034  

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:  770531  
Current ENL Date: 981014    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 06 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  04  Yrs, 08 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-960905-981013/HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13M20 Multiple Launch Rocket System Crewmember   GT: 102   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (3), AGCM, NCOPDR, ASR 
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he is a currently employed as a civilian Army Recruiter in Cedar Rapids, IA.  The applicant relates he feels that he is an asset to the company he works for, the military, and his country.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 11 April 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—commission of a serious offense (on 16 September 2000, Idar-Oberstein, Germany, he was accused by the polezi anf the military p[olice of driving while intoxicated, and damaging with his car, trees of the host nation.  On 25 November 2000, he was charged by the military police with indecent assault upon Ms. HM, a person not his wife, by grabbing her waist, and her face in an attempt to kiss her against her will.  On divers occasions between on or about 10 December 1999, and 2 February 2000, he was counseled for failing to report to his appointed place of duty, and he was counseled numerous times for failing to pay just debts), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 21 April 2001, memorandum for record submitted by the trial counsel indicates the applicant was afforded the opprtunity to consult with legal counsel on more than one occasion, however; he refused to complete the endorsement indicating his election of rights or right to counsel until certain awards were listed in the commander's memorandum.  The Staff Judge Advocate provided the applicant sufficient time to update his ERB, but the applicant did not.  The memorandum for record further indicates that the command affored the applicant all of his due process rights under AR 635-200 despite the fact that he refused to sign the endorsements outlining those rights.  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 28 January 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
      
       The applicant has a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand in his Official Military Personnel File dated 22 September 2000, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and causing an accident.
      
      The applicant has a Military Police Report dated 28 November 2000, in his Official Military Personnel File. 

      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 periods of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge and therefore recommends that relief be denied in this case.  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 November 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: 27 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060014784

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages