Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 010411
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010710   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Co, 1-6 IN Bn, Baumholder, Germany 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 000831, failure to report (000821), forfeiture of $290, 14 days restriction and extra duty (CG)

000615, failure to report (000615), 4 days of extra duty (Summarized)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 001018    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 08Mos, 22Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 10Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 980901-001017/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11M10, FV Infantry   GT: 100   EDU: HS EQ    Overseas: Germany, Kosovo   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, HSM, KCM, NM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Jeffersonville, IN
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 April 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern misconduct—for having been counseled on divers occasions between 9 December 1999 and 12 March 2001, for failures to report, violation of pass restrictions, disobeying a lawful order from an NCO, being disrespectful to an NCO, for having received a Company Grade and Summarized Article 15s for failures to report.  He was also counseled for failure to report to flag detail, driving without a USAREUR's license, wrongfully using marijuana, and for making a false statement, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 11 April 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to 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 senior commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 11 June 2001, 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.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of this regulation 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 the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue submitted with his application, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service to include his deployment to Kosovo mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  The record shows that many of the discrediting entries took place in a prior period of honorable service that had already been characterized as honorable, further, the applicant earned an AAM, a NATO Medal, and a Humanitarian Service Medal.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst  recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 1 April 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service to include his deployment to Kosovo.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.   This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.
        
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
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: E-4/SPC.
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080009848
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages