Application Receipt Date: 061020	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting 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: 060227
Discharge Received:     Date: 060421   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (AWOL)
RE:     SPD: JKD
Unit/Location: P Company, 266th Quartermaster Battalion, Fort Lee, VA  23801 

Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 19 days, 4 day (060128-060131) and 15 days (060202-060216).  Applicant surrendered to military authorities at Fort Lee, VA and was transferred to Fot Knox, KY.

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  860719  
Current ENL Date: 051018    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  21 weeks
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 05Mos, 16Days (Includes 47 days of excess leave 060306-060421)
Total Service:  00 Yrs, 05Mos, 16Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E1
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 83   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: None
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 27 February 2006, 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 (being AWOL from on or about 28 January 2006 to on or about 1 February 2006 and from on or about 2 February 2006 to on or about 17 February 2006), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her 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.  The separation authority approved the applicant's request for a waiver and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than 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, documents, and the issue she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable or general, under honorable condition 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, if the applicant desires to reenlist, she should contact the local recruiter to determine her eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 7 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 5    No change 0   - 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 characterization of service granted is inequitable.  The Board noted that the applicant was in entry-level status when she returned from a period of AWOL (i.e., she had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty).  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with AWOL while still in an entry-level status.  In essence the applicant’s separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and command had the option to characterize her service under other than honorable conditions or to describe her service as uncharacterized.  Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant’s discharge, after carefully examining the applicant’s record of service and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board concluded that the applicant’s service should now be described as uncharacterized.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief by changing the description of the applicant’s service to uncharacterized.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.









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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 20 November 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060014819

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages