Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080731	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of inequity.  See enclosed 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: 070109
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070202   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Troop, 2nd Squadron, 17th Calvary Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) Ft. Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060302 willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a LTC then known by you to be your superior commissioned officer; on 16 January 2006 to reinstall a .50 caliber can, attach the feed tray, and reconnect the aim-1 laser cable on the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter, willfully disobey the same; 22 February 2006 having received a lawful command from a 1LT then known by you to be your superior commissioned officer to present him with your knowledge of the M-4 weapon, willfully disobey the same; 11 January 2006 were disrespectful in language and deportment toward a SGT then known by you to be your superior noncommissioned officer by saying “they just give E5 to anyone and some people don’t deserve it” or words to that effect and by speaking in a disrespectful tone;  11 January 2006 having received a lawful order from a SGT  then known by you to be your superior noncommissioned officer given an order  to go see if lunch chow was available, willfully disobey the same; 17 January 2006 having received a lawful order from a SGT  then known by you to be your superior noncommissioned officer given an order to complete a 750 work essay and present it to her no later than 1000hrs, willfully disobey the same; were disrespectful in deportment toward a SFC then known by you to be your superior noncommissioned officer by speaking in a disrespectful tone; 20 February 2006 were derelict in the performance of your duties in that you negligently failed to maintain accountability of your assigned M-4 weapon; restriction and extra duty for 14 days and oral reprimand (CG).

060319 without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty; extra duty; reduction to E3; forfeiture of $394.00 pay for one  month and written reprimand (CG).

060814 without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty; physical training formation; reduction to E2; forfeiture of $356.00 pay for one month, 14 days extra duty and restriction, suspended (CG).



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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030205    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 11Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 11Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 15S/Helicopter Rep   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea, SWA   Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (050906-060819)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NSDM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM, ASR, OSR-2, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Killeen, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 9 January 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for disobeying two Commissioned Officers, disobeying two Noncommissioned Officers, disrespecting two Noncommissioned Officers and being derelict in the performance of your duties, 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 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 (s) reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 10 January 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. 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: 090508         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 AR20080012438
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages