Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010694
Original file (AR20070010694.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070802	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and 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: 931221
Discharge Received:     Date: 940210   
Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKQ
Unit/Location: A Trp, 3-4 Cav, APO, AE 

Time Lost: None

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

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 931008,SCM, Willful dereliction of duty X 2 (930821 and 930822), false official statement X 4 (930822), assault consummated by battery (930902), and negligently discharging a firearm (930822); reduction to E-1, $543 X 1, and 30 days confinement.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7306  
HOR City, State: Las Vegas, NV
Current ENL Date: 910821    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 05Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 05Mos, 20Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10 Cav Scout   GT: 112   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR, 

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 21 December 1993, 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 willful dereliction of duty X 2 (930821 and 930822), false statement X 4 (930822), assault consummated by battery (930902) and negligently discharging a firearm (930822), 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.  On  13 January 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.
      
      The file contains a DD Form 4430 Report of results of trial dated 8 October 1993.
      

      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.  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: 080905              
Location: Washington DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Proper	 	Improper	
						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: 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: 080907
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010694
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010002

    Original file (AR20070010002.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf, which was not found in the available records. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 30 April 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100008065

    Original file (AR20100008065.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the convening authority. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and recommends to the Board no clemency.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011240

    Original file (AR20080011240.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 5 January 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12(C)2, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct drug abuse, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004279

    Original file (AR20080004279.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 9 October 2007, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003190

    Original file (AR20090003190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 November 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011652

    Original file (AR20060011652.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 21 March 2000, 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 (disobeyed a superior noncommissioned officer and was seriously indebt), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 27 March 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013155

    Original file (AR20060013155.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060017195

    Original file (AR20060017195.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents. Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 20Days The applicant was retained beyond his ETS date of (910622), at the convence of the government. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100014060

    Original file (AR20100014060.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 September 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—abuse of illegal drugs, for wrongfully importing and using cocaine, wrongful using marijuana, and for failing to report to his designated place of duty, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070009949

    Original file (AR20070009949.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 April 2006, 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 being confined on 30 January 2006 at the Hoke County Dentention Center for First Degree Burglary, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 17 May 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed...