Applicant Name: 

Application Receipt Date: 080327	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and 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: 050307
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050722   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Battery A, 1st Bn, 40th Field Artillery, USAFATC, Ft. Sill, OK 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050202 conspire with three other NCOs to commit bribery and conspiracy against the United States Government by falsifying Army Physical Fitness Test scores for certain Initial Entry Training Soldiers: forfeiture of $1,542 for two months; restriction and extra duty for 45 days (FG).


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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  28
Current ENL Date: 011106    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 10Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		13 Yrs, 9Mos, 3Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 900807-010906/HD
Highest Grade: E7		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B4H Cannon Crewmember   GT: 114   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: Germany/Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-3, AAM-6, AGCM-4, NDSM-2, KDSM, HSM, NOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, GWTSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fayetteville, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: Continues to support the military with overseas contracts and affiliation with VFW and American Legion.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 7 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, for conspiring with fellow drill sergeants to bribe Initial Entry Training (IET) Soldiers to pay money in order to achieve passing scores on the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 21 March 2005 the applicant consulted with legal counsel. The applicant requested consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board and did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 17 May 2005, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of general, under honorable conditions.  On 23 June 2005, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board 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.  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 and documents 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 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of non-commissioned officers 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, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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: 22 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080004724
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages