Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 149 submitted by the applicant in lieu of a 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: 930315
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 930924   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKM   Unit/Location: Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 6th Infantry Division (Light), Fort Richardson, AL 99505-5000 

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:  25
Current ENL Date: Reenl/910522    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 4 Mos, 3 Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 11 Mos, 25 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 870930-910521/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 82   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska (920225-930924)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2), AAM (2), GCMDL, NDSM, ASR, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 15 March 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct; in that he had no intention of trying to change his attitude or his treatment toward his spouse; he was titled with domestic disturbance on many occasions and continued to be a problem within his unit and on the post, with an under other than 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 understood that if he was being recommended for an under other than honorable conditions discharge, he was entitled to have his case heard by an administrative separation board or he could submit a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  However, the applicant's statement is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.  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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 16 June 1993, an administrative separation board was appointed to determine if the applicant should be separated from the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  Further, the evidence of record does not show whether the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board, nor does it show that an administrative separation board was held, and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process.   On 17 September 1993, 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.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  
       
       The record contains an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 28 February 1993. 

       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 a mitigating factor that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  While the applicant's misconduct was a clear departure from acceptable Army standards, 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 determined that the applicant's offenses were mitigated by the overall length and quality of the applicant's service.  Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that partial relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service 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 a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 10 April 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4.   
        
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: SPC/E-4
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080011214
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages