Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004285
Original file (AR20080004285.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states that he was charged with AWOL and his ETS was extended to make up for the lost time and that the days made up.  He asks for an upgrade to an honorable discharge.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   None

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 030210
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030225   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 110th QM Co, Hunter AAF, GA 

Time Lost: 53 days, AWOLx6 (020802-020805, 020807-020808, 020813-020828, 021003-021015, 021108-021114, 021210-021222), surrendered.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 021017, failure to report x 6 (020204,020424,020521,020802,020806,020807), AWOL (020813-020906), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $552, 45 days extra duty and restriction

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030108, SCM, AWOL x 2 (021210-021222, 021108-021114), forfeiture of $737, confinement for 30 days.

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 000114    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F10/Petroleum Spc   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Pikesville, MD
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 10 February 2003, 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 repeated violations of Article 86, UCMJ, absent without leave, with an under other than 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 requested an administrative separation board, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 21 February 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains an MP Report dated 22 December 2002.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.  Chapter 14 of this regulation 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 the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with the application, 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 the former soldier’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the repeated acts of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of 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.  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: 16 January 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
X.  Board Action Directed					         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 AR20080004285
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013565

    Original file (AR20070013565.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 13 March 2003, 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 being AWOL, for wrongful use of marijuana x 2, for wrongful use of methamphetamines x 3, for wrongful use of amphetamines x 2, and for wrongful use of cocaine, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005692

    Original file (AR20090005692.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 13 April 1994, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002552

    Original file (AR20080002552.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 25 July 2007, 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 for receiving multiple Article 15s which clearly indicated a pattern of misconduct with no hope of rehabilitation, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070012592

    Original file (AR20070012592.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 3 October 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for consistent poor performance, apparent inability to adapt to military life, his persistent disrespect and disobedience, on several occasions which he either left his place of duty, did not return, or refused to report for duty....

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000153

    Original file (AR20080000153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 June 2006, 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 commission of a serious offense, drug abuse, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action,he requested consideration of administrative separation board if he...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014081

    Original file (AR20080014081.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Board Action Directed 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 AR20080014081 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080001245

    Original file (AR20080001245.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 24 January 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. Before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007164

    Original file (AR20090007164.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 October 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct for being AWOL (020731-020813) and failed to be at her appointed place of duty (020814) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013745

    Original file (AR20080013745.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard State of Minnesota for six years (050714), was ordered to active duty and served in Iraq and received numerous awards and decorations. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, submitted a statement in his own behalf and understood that he was receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 1 May 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007787

    Original file (AR20080007787.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 October 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, 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 Board...