Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071102	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: I would like to upgrade my discharge because I believe that I was not treated fairly when being separated from the Army.  I received to Company Grade Article 15 in 2004 and 2005 under my Company Commander, Cpt. Ortiz.  
When I stayed back on Rear Detachment with Cpt. Hanson I was accused of vandalizing SGT Shields’ vehicle, but after giving a statement to the police all accusations were dropped.  After this incident Cpt. Hanson believed that I had no use for the Army and pushed for a Field Grade Article 15 and a separation from the Army for the damage to Sgt Shields vehicle.  After talking to the Brigade Commander he could not do so on the incident with the vandalism to SGT Shields vehicle.  He looked back at previous Article 15's and included those in my separation.  I know that I was wrong when I received the Article 15's in 2004 and 2005.  Since under Cpt.Hanson command I had never recieved any negative consel statement on my work or my attendance.  If I did not report, I notified my first line supervisor.  I have had some life changing incidents since my last Article 15 in 2005.  I enjoyed my time I served in the Army.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 061120
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070122   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern Of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 1st BCT (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050517, failure to report x 3 (050425), (050401), and  (041213), with intent to deceive, signed an official recor; to wit, a sick call slip (050402), made a false official statement to a SPC (050401) and made a false official statement to a SFC (050401), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $323, extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (suspended) (CG).

The applicant stated in her issues that she received a Company Grade Article 15 in 2004.  However, that document is not part of the available record. 

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030114    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  Retained in service 9 days for the convenience of the Government per 10 USC 12305.
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 00Mos, 09Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 00Mos, 09Days Includes 9 days of excess leave (Dates NIF)
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport Operator   GT: 91   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030405-031222)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Radcliff, KY
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 November 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 failure to repair on several occasions, forged a sick call slip and made a false official statement x 2, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 8 December 2006, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she 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 her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 noted the applicant issue and 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.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 3 October 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  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. 

 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070015608
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages