Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2007/07/05	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.

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: 050901
Discharge Received:     Date: 051025   
Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, Commission of a Serious Offense
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: 249th QM Co, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: 17 days, AWOL x 3 (050601-050605, 050615-050626, 050822-050823), mode of return is unknown.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050722, AWOL x 3 (050601-050606, 050617-050627, 050630-050701), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 x 2, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  8507  
HOR City, State: Manhattan, NY
Current ENL Date: 030721    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 29Days includes delayed entry 2 mo, 19 days
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 11Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A/Autom Log Spc   GT: 93   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, GWOTSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: Works as a surgical technician, graduated from college with honors, and enrolled in a 4-year college program for a bachelors degree.  She has provided documentation for the Board's review.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 1 September 2005, 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, for breaking restriction, for being AWOL repeatedly and for failure to report (050601-050605, 050615-050627, 050630-050701, 050714-050715, 050803-050804, 050822-050823), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  On 12 September 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service 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 12 October 2005, 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.  

      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 and the documents 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 to avoid deployment, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined in her application and in the documents with her application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.   In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 27 June 2008              
Location: Washington, D.C.

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 1    No change 4   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  

								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 1 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009443
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages