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:
United States
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