Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 20071115	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states in affect that he is requesting an upgrade to get assistance in paying or helping financially with school.  He is currently enrolled at Blackhawk Technical College in Beloit, Wisconsin.  He also work full time and it can be very tiring. He states deserved the discharge he received, but he also feel he have earned an upgrade.  He is doing things that are necessary for his family, his job and continuing his education.  He just ask that he is allowed this chance to finish college with assistance from the selection board, and having them upgrade his discharge. 

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: 041103
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041116   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Patterns of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: A Troop, 1st Squadron, 16th Cav Reg, Fort Knox, KY 

Time Lost: 6 days confinement (Hardin County Detention Facility) (18-23 May 2003)

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030422, wrongfully used marijuana on or about (030225-030325), reduced to E3; forfeiture of $721.00 pay X 2 months (SUSPENDED), perform extra duty for 38 days. (FG)

030627, failed to go to appointed place of duty (0600 formation) on (030610) and without authority failed to go to your appointed place of duty (work call at 0645 to St John's motor pool) (030613); reduced to E2, forfeiture of $300 for one month (BOTH SUSPENDED), restriction to troop area for 14 days and perform extra duty for 14 days. (CG)

The suspension of the punishment of reduction to PV2 (E2), forfeiture of $300 pay imposed on (030627) was VACATED, effective (030728) based on the applicant's offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty (030720).

040921, failed to go to appointed place of duty (0700 work call) on (040814), failed to go to appointed place of duty (0700 work call) on (040815), failed to go to appointed place of duty (0600 in front of Hurley Motor pool Gate) on (040825); found drunk on duty as a HW-083 driver (040825); reduced to E3; forfeiture of $792 pay X 2 months, perform extra duty for 45 days; restriction to troop area for 45 days. (FG) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 010123    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  0
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 09Mos, 25Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 09Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	NA
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D Scout Cavalry   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, GCM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
            The evidence of record shows that on 3 November 2004, 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 failure to be at appointed place of duty at least X 7, tested positive for marijuana, involved in a stabbing incident in Radcliff, KY, where he was charged with three counts of attempted murder and fleeing the scene.  Radcliff Police found a 12-gauge shotgun and blood on a ruck sack in his car and an air pistol in his room.  He was confined in the Hardin County detention facility in Elizabethtown, KY from 18-23 May 2003.  When he appeared in court on 23 May 2003, he was found guilty of fleeing the scene, fined $386.50 and the other charges were dropped.  He also reporting to work intoxicated as the duty driver of a HW-083 and the back-up driver for a HMMWV, 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 did not submit 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 16 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.
The file contains a CID report dated 17 April 2003.

       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.  Further, 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. 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: 20081001         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			 
Issue a new DD Form 214  					         Colonel, U.S. Army
Change Characterization to: 			         President, Army Discharge Review Board 
Change Reason to:  
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070016637
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages