Application Receipt Date: 061211	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See 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: 050614   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: HHC, 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX 76544  

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:  750605  
Current ENL Date: 030103    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02  Yrs, 05 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Total Service:  08  Yrs, 04 Mos, 21 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-970124-000121/HD
                                      USARCG-000122-001206/HD
                                      RA-001207-030102/HD
Highest Grade: E5
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B20   GT: 89   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: Iraq (040317-041118)
Decorations/Awards: AAM (3), AGCM, NDSM, ICM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, NM 
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 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 (on 13 May 2005, he was counseled for a domestic altercation with his wife; 29 April 2005, counseled for asking junior enlisted Soldiers for loans; 22 April 2005, counseled for failing to inform his chain of command about the disconnection his phone; 22 March 2005, 21 March 2005, 17 March 2005, 11 March 2005, and 7 January 2005, counseled for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; 10 February 2005, he was counseled for a physical altercation with two other Soldiers; 1 February 2005, counseled for his duty performance; 19 January 2005, counseled for disobeying orders; 16 January 2005, counseled for a domestic altercation that resulted in his arrest), 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, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, 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 9 June 2005, 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 Military Police Report dated 16 January 2005, 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 period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable.    

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 6 August 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 4    No change 1   - 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 was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, voted not to change it.

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: 

MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 17 August 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060017137

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 5 pages