Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2007/09/25	

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: 070426
Discharge Received:     Date: 070522   
Chapter:  14-12b      AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: A Co, 92d ECB (Hvy)(Fwd), FT Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: None	

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061004, disrespect towards a non-commissioned officer x2 (060915 and 060915), assaulted a non-commissioned officer (060915), threatened a non-commissioned officer (060915), failed to go to appointed place of duty at prescribed time x2 (060512 and 060817), reduced to E1, forfeiture of $636.00 x 2 mos (suspended), and 45 days extra duty. (FG). 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070425, SCM, disrespect to a non-commissioned officer x2, disobeying a lawful order x2, forfeiture of $900.00 x 1 month, 60 days restriction.  

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  1983/06  
HOR City, State: Louisa, KY
Current ENL Date: 030903    Current ENL Term: 4   Years  ?????
Current ENL Service:   03    Yrs,  08 Mos,  20 Days ?????
Total Service:    03    Yrs,  08 Mos,  20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None	
Highest Grade: E4  
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21R10 Interior Electrician   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea/ SWA   Combat: Kuwait/ Iraq (061030-071030)
Decorations/Awards: AAMx2 / ASR / NDSM / GWOTSM / / KDSM/ 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 does not contain all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge.  The unit commander’s notification to the applicant is not part of the record however, the commander’s recommendation reflects the initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for disobeying lawful orders given by non-commissioned officers on several occasions and being disrespectful to non-commissioned officers on several occasions, 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.  A memorandum from the Staff Judge Advocate (070501) indicates that subordinate commanders recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 May 2007, 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, 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. The analyst noted the applicant's issue, however, eligibility for veteran's benefits (to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill) does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Furthermore, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities and, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  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: 22 August 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 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013353
______________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages