Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted in lieu of DD Form 293.

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: 031118
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040209   Chapter: 7-17     AR: 635-200
Reason: Fraudulent Entry	   RE:     SPD: JDA   Unit/Location: I Co, 262nd QM Bn, Fort Lee, 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: 030425    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 09Mos, 15Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 00Mos, 09Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG-960107-960130/NA
                                       ADT-960131-960604/UNC
                                       ARNG-960605-030424/NA
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92R1P Parachute Rigger   GT: 111   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, 

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 18 November 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, AR 635-200, by reason of fraudulent enlistment, for failure to list his arrest record as required on enlistment documents, 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, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The separation approving authority's documentation that waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  On 6 February 2004,  DA, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command & Fort Lee, Fort Lee, VA, Orders 037-0501, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 9 February 2004.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a fraudulent entry is the procurement of an enlistment, reenlistment, or period of active service through any deliberate material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment of information which, if known and considered by the Army at the time of enlistment or reenlistment, might have resulted in rejection.  This includes all disqualifying information requiring a waiver.  A Soldier who concealed his or her conviction by civil court of a felonious offense normally will not be considered for retention.  Soldiers separated under this chapter may be awarded an honorable discharge, or a general discharge, or a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  If in an entry level status the characterization will be uncharacterized. 

       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, the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the applicant's narrative reason for discharge.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant failed to list his arrest record as required on enlistment documents at the time of enlistment, and was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, paragraph 7-17, by reason of fraudulent entry, with a fully honorable discharge.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, however, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 7-17, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Fraudulent Entry" and the separation code is "JDA."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  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.  Finally, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board that relief be denied.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 4 March 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 narrative reason for 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 0
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 AR20080007696
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages