Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached documents (6) 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: 040610
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040723   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Rear Detachment, 5-20th Infantry Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (SBCT), Fort Lewis, WA 98433 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 for 139 days (031105-040323). The applicant returned to his unit on (040323). 

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:  17
Current ENL Date: 030328    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 7 Days The DD Form 214 item 12c net active service this period is incorrect; should be: 0 Years, 11 Months, 7 Days, the applicant has a period of AWOL, which is not reflected on the DD Form 214, in block 29 (Time Lost). 
Total Service:  		0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 7 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 100   EDU: GED Certif   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached character reference letters submitted on behalf of the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 6 June 2004, 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; in that he went AWOL between (031105-040323), 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 12 July 2004, 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, supporting documents 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 that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s character reference letters and other documents with his application outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Finally, 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: 18 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 AR20080009270
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages