Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2007/07/31	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None		

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received:     Date: 990512   
Chapter: 14-12c    AR:  635-200  
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: B Co, 82d EN Bn, APO, AE 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990105, disrespect to noncommissioned officer x 2 (981112), reduced to E3, forfeiture of $287.00, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty. (CG). 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990305, SCM, Disobeyed order from Officer, disobeyed order from NCO, assault, and communicate a threat; 21 days confinement.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7312  
HOR City, State: Mill Creek, PA
Current ENL Date: 970213    Current ENL Term:  4  Years  ?????
Current ENL Service:   02     Yrs,   02    Mos,   00   Days ?????
Total Service:   04    Yrs,  10    Mos,   12 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA 940701-970212  HD
Highest Grade:   E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 12B10  Combat Engineer   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None	
Decorations/Awards: AAM / ASR / NDSM / GCMDL / OSR / JMUA

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 29 March 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for failing to pay debts, failing to report to appointed place of duty, disrespecting and disobeying non-commissioned officers, missing guard mount, charged with assault on two separate occasions, and convicted under a Summary Court-Martial for assault, disobeying orders from a Non-Commissioned and Commissioned officer, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an Administrative Separation Board, and did not submit a statement in his 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 5 May 1999, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver to an Administrative Separation Board, 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 he 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 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.  Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  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: 23 July 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   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 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: 25 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010683
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages