Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/06	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: Records/2008/02/13

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 991201
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000626   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 4th Air Defense Artillery, APO AE 09185. 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990817, Failed to be at his appointed place of duty (990727), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $223.00 pay for none month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

991101, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty (991006), forfeiture of $223.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).  

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 980611    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 16Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14R10 LOS-F-H Crew member   GT: 91   EDU: HS Ltr   Overseas: Germany (981228-000626)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 1 December 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—pattern of misconduct in that you have numerous failures to be at your appointed place of duty, which has resulted in two Company Grade Article 15's, 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, 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 1 June 2000, 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.  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, and the issue he 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 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 applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  The analyst further noted that the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier.  The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined that the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.  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: 17 November 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: /Mother/Witness
                                       /Father/Witness 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted medical documents and several character reference letters in support of his testimony. 

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, to include the supporting documents he submitted, the Board determined that the the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length of the applicant's service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e., the applicant had a documented medical condition) mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.   



        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
								         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 AR20080007463
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages