Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2007/11/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by the Applicant.

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: 040106
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040630   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 172d Support Infantry Bn, Fort Wainwright, AK 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 990809    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 10Mos, 23Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 10Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 970806-990808/HD
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B30/Infantryman   GT: 89   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Panama, Alaska   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM-2, ASR, GWOTSM, EIB 

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 6 January 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 having been convicted by a civil court for assault in the third degree which caused him to be confined between 17 January 2003 and 20 November 2003, with a other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 3 May 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders’ recommendations are not contained in the available record.  On 3 May 2004, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The document that approved the findings of the administrative separation board and ordered his discharge is not contained in the record and the analyst presumed government regularity.  On 30 June 2004, the applicant was discharged from the Army with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.
        
       The record contains a CID Report dated 22 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, the documents, 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.  Because of the civilian conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.  The analyst noted that an administrative separation board was properly conducted and that the separation authority would have determined the specific offenses warranted separation.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brings discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a general or 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: 17 October 2008         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 1    No change 4
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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070017574
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages