Application Receipt Date: 061031	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: 070216

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: 031209
Discharge Received:     Date: 040211   
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKK
Unit/Location: B Company, 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry Regiment, APO, AE  09324 

Time Lost: None

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

031126, Letter of reprimand-for abusing detainees and dereliction of duty in a time of war (Administrative).


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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  801119  
Current ENL Date: 011002    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 10 Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 10 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 110   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030511-040130)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR, CIB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: A supporting memoramdum states that the applicant has worked as a fueler for Great Lakes Airlines since 20 May 2004.   

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
Evidence of record shows that on 9 December 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—commission of a serious offense (A CID investigation revealed that on 12 June 2003, you participated in the wrongful physical abuse of civilian detainees, and failed to stop other members of your squad from doing the same), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel and consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, waived his right to submit a conditional waiver, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 8 January 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  

The applicant had CID Reports Of Investigations dated 29 June 2003 and 21 August 2003, in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).



      

      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 additional documents he submited, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The analyst determined that 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 or general 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  Therefore, 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: 14 February 2007              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




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     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (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, the additional documents he submitted, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, 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: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 11 May 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070005561   

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages