Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071126	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: "I believe I was not give a fair chance to show that I was a good soldier all around I feel that I had poor leadership in front of  me.  If I was giving the right oppertunity to show that I was a good soldier and the right leadership to show me how to be that good soldier then I would have been still in the army at this time I loved the military life.  I do take some of the fault but I still that I was new in the military at the time and the leadership that I had was not the right leadership to show me the right path to be a great soldier.  If could have my discharge change i would re-enlisted long time ago.  Due to the injustice I was force to cut my military carer short and was unable to finish what I set out to do in the army I would like for the board to look in to this due to the fact that feel that I serve my country well and would still be serving my country if it wasn’t for the injustice that was done to me."

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020422   Chapter: 14-12B       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHT, 1st Sqdn, 3rd Armored Cav Regiment, Fort Carson, CO 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010504, Failure to go to his appointed place of duty x 4 (010329, 010411, 010418, & 010427); Reduction to E1, forfeiture of $245.00 pay, suspended, 14 days of extra duty and restriction. (CG).

010514, Vacated suspension of the punishment of forfeiture of $245.00 pay imposed on 010504.

010620, Failure to go to his appointed place of duty x 2 (010509 & 010511), breaking restriction x 3 (010514, 010515, & 010516); Forfeiture of $525.00 pay per month for 2 months, suspended, 45 days of extra duty and restriction. (FG).

020128, Failure to go to his appointed place of duty x 2 (020103 & 020117); punishment not legible; however, it appears the Applicant received a monetary fine to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 29 Jun 02 and received 14 days of extra duty and restriction. (CG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 000803    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71L Admin Specialist   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Jacksonville, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 March 2002, 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 failing to pay a court ordered fine for speeding and, as a result, having a warrant out for his arrest which resulted in his being detained (020227),disrespect to an NCO (020205), failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 8 (010329, 010411, 010418, 010427, 010509, 010516, 020103, & 020117), breaking restriction x 3 (010511, 010514, & 010515), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant was advised of his rights, 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 15 April 2002, 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. Furthermore, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the Applicant in performing and conducting himself/herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The Applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  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: 3 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 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: No Change										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070017594
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages