Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2007/10/11	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None	

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

Issues: “I was approved for continuation of service, General Bostick disapproved recommendation. I would have wished to have continued my career in the United States Army.  Discharge Board recommended me for further service.  I served honorably for 14 years and want my DD 214 to reflect that.”

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: 061027
Discharge Received:     Date: 070411   
Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct
RE:     SPD: JKA
Unit/Location: North Shore Recruiting Co, US Army Recruiting Bn, New England 

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:  1966/10  
HOR City, State: Folcroft, PA
Current ENL Date: 040915    Current ENL Term:   Indefinite   Years  ?????
Current ENL Service:   02     Yrs,   06  Mos,   27Days ?????
Total Service:    14   Yrs,  00  Mos,  13  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA 930612-960904 / HD
RA 960905-980908 / HD
RA 980909-020213 / HD
RA 020214-040914 / HD

Highest Grade:    E6  
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport Spec   GT:   118     EDU: 4 yr College- BA Degree   Overseas: Bosnia; SWA   Combat: Iraq (030207-030721)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOMx4 / AAMx2/ ASUA/ GCMDL x4/ NDSMx2 / AFEM/ GWOTSM / GWOTE /AFSM/ NATO Mdl/ ASR / OSRx2 / Recruiter Badge



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 9 August 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—pattern of misconduct for on diverse occasions between on or about 15 April 2005 and on or about 9 May 2006 violated Article 128 of the UCMJ by repeatedly assaulting his spouse and causing bodily harm and, on 1 November 2005, being charged by the State of Maine for criminal speeding, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 9 August 2006 the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his retention on active duty.  The applicant submitted a statement on 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 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 February 2007, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 14 March 2007, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a recommendation to suspend the discharge for the maximum allowable period, with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  On 3 April 2007, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and disapproved the recommendation to suspend the discharge, 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.  The analyst noted the applicant’s issue however, the analyst found not 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant’s conduct, the discrediting entry and determined it constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances concluded that the applicant's misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brings discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  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: 20 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    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: 21 August 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070013939
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages