Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/18 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: 061211
Discharge Received: Date: 070112 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: HHC, 2nd BSTB, (Rear) (Provisional), Fort Hood, TX
Time Lost: AWOL for 292 days (050725-(060516), apprehended.
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061109, SCM, AWOL from (050725-(060517), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $500, and 15 days confinement.
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 23
Current ENL Date: 040415 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 07Days ?????
Total Service: 04 Yrs, 00Mos, 02Days ?????
Previous Discharges: RA-020319-040414/HD
Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 21B10 Combat Engineer GT: 93 EDU: GED Cert Overseas: Korea/Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (040112-050320)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, OSR-2,
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Kirtland, NM
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 December 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-commission of a serious offense for being AWOL (050725-(060516), 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, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board as discussed in his Offer to Plead Guilty dated 16 October 2006, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 21 December 2006, 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 applicant's record contains a Military Police Report with additional offenses attached dated 6 June 2006.
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 applicants 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 applicants 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 applicants service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and the applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, this accomplishment does not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief. 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 applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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 AR20080005978
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013860
The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general discharge. The available record does not contain the separation authority's discharge directive memorandum; however, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that indicates the applicant was discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Certification...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007881
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 16 November 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, AR 635-200, by reason of patterns of misconduct for failure to report x 5 (060406, 060525, 060608, 060720, and 060811), and going AWOL (060419 to 060516), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002080
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 13 December 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 commission of a serious offense on 19 October 2006, you received a Field Grade Article 15 for drug use, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 21 December 2006, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080000274
Applicant Name: ????? The Board recommended separation with a general discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080015294
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 March 2006, the applicant was charged with being AWOL x2 (050625-050714 & 050725-060310). It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100019041
Applicant Name: ????? c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants military records, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009018
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 14 October 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconductpattern of misconduct in that she received a Field Grade Article 15 on 9 August 2005, for being AWOL from (050711-050725), and was counseled on numerous occasions for failing to report, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016831
Applicant Name: ????? 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. 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070018916
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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060011669
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 00Mos, 22Days ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.