Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013006
Original file (AR20070013006.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070920	

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: 070305
Discharge Received:     Date: 070329   
Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: A Detachment, 208th FIN, APO, AE 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  8307  
HOR City, State: San Antonio, TX
Current ENL Date: 030603    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 27Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 09Mos, 27Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 44C10 Fin MGMT Tech   GT: 116   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, 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   05 March 2007, 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 repeatedly failing to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeyed the lawful orders of his superiors as well as shown a blatant lack of respect for good order and discipline (numerous counseling statements), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  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 12 March 2007, the separation authority 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, 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 documents 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: 080730              
Location: Washington DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: None 

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 3    No change 2   - 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board determined that the overall length, quality, and the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  ?????

								        
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: 080801
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013006
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070010909

    Original file (AR20070010909.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 4 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—abuse of illegal drugs for the wrongful use of marijuana, wrongful possession of marijuana, and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 7 April 2006, the separation authority waived further...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016548

    Original file (AR20060016548.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. His NGB Form 22 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-27g, NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions, and a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3". Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000283

    Original file (AR20080000283.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. On 5 August 2007, 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008124

    Original file (AR20080008124.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant declined legal counsel , voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 25 April 1997, the separation...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007185

    Original file (AR20080007185.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant Name: ????? On 26 July 2007, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090019123

    Original file (AR20090019123.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080006845

    Original file (AR20080006845.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 October 2002, the applicant declined legal counsel, however, a subsequent undated document indicates that he consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Pattern of Misconduct", and the separation code is "JKA." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015172

    Original file (AR20060015172.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 18 November 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015159

    Original file (AR20060015159.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 01 May 1995, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l4, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct for failure to report, disobeying a lawful regulation, writing bad checks, failure to obey lawful orders and indebtedness, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 5 May 1995, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006703

    Original file (AR20060006703.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is...