Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/22	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of 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: 980107
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980509   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 240th QM Co, APO AE 09139 

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:  26
Current ENL Date: 970114    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 03Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		07 Yrs, 01Mos, 21Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-910319-931219/HD
                                       RA-931220-970113/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10 Automated Logistics Spec/11B10 Infantryman   GT: 110   EDU: Germany/Bosnia   Overseas: Germany/Bosnia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, AGCM-2, NDSM, AFSM, NCOPDR-2, ASR, OSR-2, NM

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 7 January 1998, 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 for assaulting his wife with a knife and a tire iron (970811), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, after having been advised by an Officer of the Judge Advocate General, regarding the initiation of separation action pursuant to Chapter 14, AR 635-200, the separation action was initiated contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1-19b, AR 635-200, and consequently legal counsel advised him not to sign the election of rights.  On 9 February 1998, a memorandum, from Chief, Retirement and Separations Branch, (LTC, AG), opined that the administrative separation action was not in contravention to paragraph 1-19, AR 635-200.  On 18 February 1998, the separation approving authority referred the administrative separation action to the Big Red One East Area Standing Administrative Separation Board.   The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate and senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 25 February 1998, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and was advised of his rights.  On 13 March 1998, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a characterization of service of  under other than honorable conditions.  On 1 May 1998, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report dated 15 August 1997.

       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, 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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents he 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 his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his 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 issues; 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: 29 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 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: None
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080011606
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages