Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents 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: 030716
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 031021   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 1-325 IN Bn, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030530, disrespect, assault on an NCO (030523), disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO (030523), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $575 x 2, 45 days extra duty and restriction (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 000628    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 03Mos, 24Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 980219-980416/UNC
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B1P/Infantryman   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kosovo, Iraq   Combat: Iraq (030214-030901)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, KCM, ASR, NM, EIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Continental Divide, NM
Post Service Accomplishments: Attending Fort Lewis College, 19 hours, GPA 3.96

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 16 July 2003, 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 having received a Field Grade Article 15 for disrespect and assault upon an NCO (030530), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant’s election of rights is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity.  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 23 July 2003, 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 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 and documents 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 former soldier’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 that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.   Additionally, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that this type of discharge hinders his job opportunities; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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: 3 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 2    No change 3
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 AR20080010770
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages