Application Receipt Date: 070525

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's DD Form 293 and attached document.

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: 010123
Discharge Received:     Date: 010207
Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: HHB 3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery Regiment, Fort
Carson, CO 80913-5014

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 001031-Disrespectful in language
toward a SSG, (000802), (Company Grade).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  781130
Current ENL Date: 990718    Current ENL Term: NIF Years       
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days      
Total Service:  04  Yrs, 03 Mos, 20 Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: 91B10 Medical Spec   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany
Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, ASR, OSR, ALB
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: Richmond, VA 23233
Current Address:
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is a Financial
Services Professional specializing in Retirement planning, Estate planning,
and Executive benefits.  He further states he is married and has 3
children.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      Evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2001, 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 ( 29 December 2000, he failed to be at his appointed place of
duty, to wit:  0530 formation, on or about 2 August 2000, he was
disrespectful in language toward toward an NCO, to wit: saying ""you're a
fucking joke, on on about 6 April 200, failed to be at his appointed place
of duty, to wit:  HHB COB formation, on on about 4 April 200, failed to be
at his appointed place of duty, to wit:  0530 at aid station, on or between
25 January 2000 and 13 September 2000, he failed to pass four Army Physical
Fitness Tests), 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, and submitted 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.  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, 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 od enlistment unde review, the issue and document he submitted,
the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the
applicant's discharge, and therfore recommends that relef be denied in this
case.  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 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined
that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both
proper and equitable.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing:                  Date: 14 November 2007
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel:      

Witnesses/Observers:      

Exhibits Submitted:      



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 0    No change 5   - 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, hearing his testimony, and considering
the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the
discharge was both proper and equitable and 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:


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON            DATE:      
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder