Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 071129	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 041109
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041217   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 3-505th IN Bn (ABN), Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: Confinement/Military Authorities for 84 days (040728-041021), as a result of Special Court-Martial sentence.

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

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040726, SPCM, conspired with other Soldiers to commit larceny of the property of another Soldier, of a value over $500 between (031215-031231), and larceny of the property of another Soldier, of a value over $500 between (031215-031231).  Reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $250 x 10 and confinement for 10 months.  The Convening Authority will approve no confinement in excess of 4 months.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030923    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 00Mos, 01Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 00Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-010918-030921/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F1P Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030804-040320)/Afghanistan (020915-021120)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fayetteville, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated he has been employed as fireman with the Fayetteville Fire Department for the past two years and awaiting transfer to the Fort Bragg Fire and Emergency Services.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 9 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-commission of a serious offense, received a Special Court-Martial for receiving stolen goods, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.   The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  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.

       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 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 analyst noted the applicant's issue; 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.  Additionally, the analyst noted the accomplishments outlined in the documents with his application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  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: 10 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 AR20070017685
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages