Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2007/12/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and enclosed statement 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: 070411
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070525   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Co C, 442d Signal Bn, Fort Gordon, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060824, duty dereliction by being asleep in his vehicle and failing to provide medical aide as a combat lifesaver (060328), continuation sheet not in file, reduction to E-3, forfeiture of one week's pay (suspended), 14 days extra duty (CG)

070320, failure to report (061114), continuation sheet not in file, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $864 x 2, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 050222    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 03Mos, 04Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 07Mos, 03Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 011023-050221/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25F10/Network Sys Op   GT: 118   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, SWA   Combat: Iraq (021112-030901)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, JMUA, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 11 April 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct—for constant failures to report to his appointed place of duty, 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 commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 May 2007, 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.  The record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that his discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured he was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  He was transferred from Bravo to Charlie Company in an attempt to rehabilitate and afford him the opportunity to continue to soldier on, however, the incidents of misconduct continued.  The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command as stated by the applicant.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  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: 24 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 2    No change 3
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 AR20070018751
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages