Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states, "First i couldn't see the type of discharge that i got so i put general down. the actual discharge was general under honorable conditions. The reason why I am requesting my discharge be upgraded is because I did serve my country honorably with a tour to kosovo and 2 tours to Afghanistan and so that I can further my education at George Mason University and recieve my GI Bill to pay for college."

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: 070208
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070312   Chapter: 14-12C       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, Serious Offense	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HQ, 3d BCT (Rear) Provisional, 10th Mountain Div, Ft Drum, NY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050714, at Ft Polk, LA on or about 050811 were derelict in the performance of duty in that you negligently failed to report the cracked windshield of a HMMWV; on or about 050608 by wrongfully entering into prohibited fraternization relationships with PFCs RLM and GPB; on or about 050607 wrongfully accessing sexual-oriented sites on a government computer; on or about 050611 made a false official statement and on or about 050611 willfully damage by punching and cracking a windshield of a HMMWV; reduction to E4, forfeiture of $938 pay per month for 2 months, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 050915, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG).

061227, at or near FOB Bermel, Afghanistan on or about 060311 failed to go to the time prescribed-radio watch; without authority go from your appointed place of duty- radio watch; behave yourself with disrespect toward a commissioned officer by rolling your eyes and talking over him while he was giving instruction to the squad; willfully disobeyed a lawful order not to wear unserviceable boots; on or about 060314 were derelict in the performance of your duties in that you placed your M249 SAW on fire and pulled the trigger without clearing your weapon during a class that you were instructing on the SAW; on or about (060929) derelict in the performance of those duties in that you negligenly failed to wear your IBA and helmet and with intent to deceive make an official statement which was totally false in that your corrective training is only supposed to be for 6 days; on or about 060315 wrongfully communicate a threat to PFCs JMJ and BM, by pretending to pull the pin and throw a grenade at them and making an exploding sound; on or about 061121 wrongfully communicate a threat to PFC CWH by stating, "get the fuck out of my face, I am about to get pissed off like I did in Kosovo"; reduction to E3, forefeiture of $418 pay per for one month, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated by 060327, extra duty for 14 days (CG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 060427    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 11Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		6 Yrs, 03Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 001013-060426/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13D1/FA Fire Direction Spc   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kosovo    Combat: Afghanistan (030728-040415)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ACM, GWOTEM, KCMBSS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, NM, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Lorton, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 8 February 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12C, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct —serious offense for having received a Field Grade Article 15 for negligence in the performance of duties, fraternization, violation of a lawful general order, false official statement, and damaging military property, for having received a Company Grade Article 15 for failing to report to his place of duty twice, for acting with disrespect toward a commissioned officer, disobeying a lawful order from a non-commissioned officer, dereliction in the performance of his duties, making another false official statement, communicating a threat, and wrongfully using language that was prejudicial to good order and discipline, 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, unconditionally 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 commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 2 March 2007, 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 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.  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.  The analyst noted that one of the Article 15’s cited by the unit commander in the separation packet was from a prior period of honorable service.  Notwithstanding this, the analyst concluded that the rights of the applicant were not prejudiced by the error on file in this case.  Department of Defense Directive 1332.28 stipulates that a discharge is proper unless the error was a prejudicial error.  The applicant had a record of misconduct and substandard performance of duty with few significant favorable entries in the record for the period under review.  The evidence did not create a substantial doubt that the discharge would have been any different if the error had not been made.  Therefore, 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: 1 May 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 AR20080011409
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages