Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 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: 990419
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990602   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKB   Unit/Location: 765th Trans Bn, Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  27
Current ENL Date: 970117    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 04Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 06Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG-901108-910102/NA
                                       ADT-910103-910718/HD
                                       ARNG-910719-961107/HD
                                       USARCG-961108-970116/NA
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, ARCAM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Riverview, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
             Evidence of record shows that on 19 April 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—conviction by civil court  for embezzlement in Newport News, Virginia Circuit Court and Hampton, Virginia Circuit Court, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action,  waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 5 May 1999, again the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 12 May 1999, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

       The applicant's record contains an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 10 February 1999.  
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report dated 23 November 1998.

       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 during the period of enlistment under review, and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  The analyst noted that retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.  Because of the civil court conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable 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.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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: 28 January 2009         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
X.  Board Action Directed					         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 AR20080004705
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages