Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2007/12/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that the reason he is requesting an upgrade is because he won't have any trouble getting a job or going to school. It is effecting his schooling and he can't utilize his GI Bill (according to the VA in education) in which he paid for when he was in the service. Now he is paying out of his pocket, so therefore, he is asking for a review so maybe it can be changed, cause this can help him in many different ways. Also, in addition to his education, he is currently enrolled in college (University of Phoenix)) at the same time he applied for the MGI Bill and got turned down because of 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: 050322
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050504   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Company, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Hood, TX 76544. 

Time Lost: The applicant has a period of lost time shown on his DD Form 214, item 29 from (050404-050428) for a total of 25 days; however, the documentation to support this period of lost time is not in the available record.  

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041216, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 2, (040917) and (040927), wrongfully appropriate a vehicle, of a value of about $10,000, the property of a PVT (041004), and failed to obey a lawful order issued by an individual in a position to do so (041011), reduction to E-4, forfeiture of $907.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: Reenl/040825    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 7 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 8 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 000713-040824/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Specialist   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030410-040409)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, GWOTSM, IRCM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Lawton, OK
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he is currently enrolled in college (University of Phoenix).  






VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 16 March 2005, 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 in that you failed to go to your appointed place of duty x 2 (040917), (040927), wrongfully appropriated a vehicle, the property of a PVT (041004), and failed to obey a lawful order issued by an individual having the authority to do so (041011), which all offenses mentioned, resulted in you receiving a Field Grade Article 15 (041216), you failed to go to your appointed place of duty x 3 (050112), (050113), (050113), and finally, you broke restriction by traveling to Austin, TX on 31 December 2004, 1 January 2005, and traveling to Killeen Mall on 1 January 2005; 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.  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, but a general discharge 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 analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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: 15 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070018441
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages