Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states that she was never charged with any misconduct.  She was told that after 6 months she could get her discharge upgraded to honorable.  She has waited more than six months to address this issue.  The Applicant states she received an AAM, it is not contained in the record and she did not provide the documentation.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 031112
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 031127   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHC, 168th Medical Bn, Camp Walker, Korea 

Time Lost: 4 days, AWOL (030821-030824), surrendered, not reflected on current DD Form 214

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030505, failure to report x 4 (030305, 030310, 030311, 030318), disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO x 3 (030307, 030318, 030322), disobeyed a lawful order from a commissioned officer (030403), reduction to E-3, 45 days extra duty and restriction, forfeiture of $721 x 2 which was mitigated to $300 x 2 on appeal and suspended for 3 months (FG)

031001, suspended sentence of forfeiture of $300 x 2 was vacated for being AWOL (030821-030824)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: 000822    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 03Mos, 06Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 03Mos, 06Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10/Medical Spc   GT: 100   EDU: 3 YR COLL   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Woodbridge, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 12 November 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct—for a series of negative actions due to misconduct to include multiple negative counseling statements, 3 different suspensions of favorable personnel  actions (Flags) and for having received a Field Grade Article 15 in which the suspended sentence was later vacated, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 a general under honorable conditions discharge.  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, however, a general 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 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 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 U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  Additionally, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Separation Because of Pattern of Misconduct", and the separation code is "JKA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  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: 8 December 2008         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060017859
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages