Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states "I FEEL THAT MY DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CHANGED BECAUSE I WANT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR MY MONTGOMERY GIBILL. I FEEL THAT I SERVED MOST OF MY TIME TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, AND SINCE THAT JUST WAS NOT THE JOB FOR ME, I WANT TO TRY TO FUTHER MY EDUCATION. THAT WAY I CAN BETTER MYSELF AND FIND A JOB THAT WILL BE BEST FIT ME."

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: 070620
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070720   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, STB, Fort Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: The unit commander's recommendation memorandum and a Article 15 in the applicant's records, makes reference to the applicant having a period of time lost for AWOL of 14 days (070314-070328), which is not accounted for on the applicant's DD Form 214 under review.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070227, Violated a lawful general regulation by wrongfully possessing a privately owned weapon on Fort Campbell, KY without registering it with the MP's, reduction to E3, suspended, forfeiture of $380.00 pay per month for one month, 14 days extra duty, and 14 days restriction, (CG).

070410, suspension of punishment of reduction to the rank of E3 was vacated for being disrespectful in deportment towards a 1SG, by moving her head and rolling her eyes, and walking out of his office when he was speaking to her (070309).

070517, AWOL (070314-070328), the record of proceedings Under Article 15 is void of the punishment that was imposed against the applicant, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 060522    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 01Mos, 15Days Includes a period of AWOL (070314-070328)
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 04Mos, 18Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-040219-060521/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21U10/Topographic Analyst   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (050924-060824)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Clarksville, TN
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 20 June 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 a Field Grade Article (070517) for going AWOL (070312-070328), receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (070227) for wrongfully possessing a privately owned weapon on Fort Campbell, KY without registering it with the MP's, receiving various counseling statements for failing to report to her appointed place of duty and disrespect to a 1SG, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  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.  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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 issues, 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..  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: 10 February 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 AR20080005482
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages