Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008826
Original file (AR20080008826.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/04	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: 061012
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061117   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 225th Brigade Support Battalion, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857 

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:  18
Current ENL Date: 040831    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 17 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 17 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10 Food Service Operations   GT: 97   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii (050622-061117)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, GCMDL, NDSM, GWTSM, 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 12 October 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he exposed his genitalia while in the dining facility (060819); military equipment (TA-50) was unaccounted for (060323); failed to obey an order from a SGT (060323); showed up for duty without having a shaved face (060320); operating a vehicle while his on-post driving privileges were suspended (060311); showed up for work in an incomplete duty uniform x 2, (060308); (060309); failed to report x 2, (060225); (051205); wrongfully possessed alcohol while under the age of 21 (051118); and failed to report x 3, (050922); (050818); (060727), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived 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 19 October 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. 

       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 the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue 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 applicant'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 the applicant's issue and 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.  Further, 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: 11 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 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 AR20080008826
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012275

    Original file (AR20090012275.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Previously, while on active duty, he received an Honorable Discharge on 20050705 and a General Discharge on 20050223. On 20 September 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action. Army policy states that although an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080004828

    Original file (AR20080004828.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other:...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090020939

    Original file (AR20090020939.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions 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 Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110003380

    Original file (AR20110003380.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 13 June 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, for testing positive for cocaine (051116) and for being AWOL (060124 - 060323), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to fully...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006964

    Original file (AR20090006964.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2007, 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 misconduct for pattern of misconduct, in that on multiple occasions he failed to go to his appointed place of duty, was disrespectful and deportment to a NCO, disobeyed a lawful order, assaulted a SPC and made a false statement, with a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090014585

    Original file (AR20090014585.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 2 November 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he received a Company Grade Article 15 and several counseling statements for six specifications of failing to be at his appointed place of duty, leaving his place of duty, two specifications of disobeying a lawful order, and failing to pay...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090020248

    Original file (AR20090020248.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. On 30 October 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the characterization of service to fully honorable.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090010358

    Original file (AR20090010358.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions 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. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080015696

    Original file (AR20080015696.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017297

    Original file (AR20080017297.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and submitted a statement in his own behalf that is not in the available record. 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. Board...