Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080012882
Original file (AR20080012882.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: 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: 031124
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040302   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHB, 2-8 FA, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030915, possession of an unregistered privately owned weapon in his quarters (030508), without authority sold one (1) winch, military property of a value more than $500 x 2 (030507) and (030508), and stole three (3) winches, military property of a value more than $500 between (030301-030420); reduction to E-1 and confinement for seven (7) days. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 000629    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 08Mos, 04Days Block 12a on the DD Form 214, date entered active duty is incorrect, should read (000629), see enlistment contract.
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 08Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13R10 FA Firefinder Radar Operator   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 24 November 2003, 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 larceny and wrongful disposition of military property; without proper authority stole three (3) winches, military property of a value more than $500 between (030301-030430), and on divers occasions, without proper authority sold two (2) winches, military property of a value more than $500 x 2 (030507) and (030508), 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 reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 30 June 2003.

       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 and the issues he submitted, 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 issue and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  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: 27 May 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: BA

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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080012882
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008838

    Original file (AR20080008838.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003015

    Original file (AR20090003015.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 11 February 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct for receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for destroying property other than military x 3, assault on a fellow Soldier, and drunk and disorderly (040827); and a Company Grade Article 15 for adultery (030715); with an general,...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090006742

    Original file (AR20090006742.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 20 December 2007, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070017685

    Original file (AR20070017685.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? On 16 November 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120004550

    Original file (AR20120004550.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? EF married the applicant’s sister-in-law and agreed that EF and his wife would live with the applicant and wife and that EF would pay $400 a month rent starting in September. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board to deny clemency.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070017822

    Original file (AR20070017822.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 31 August 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. 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 President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100026268

    Original file (AR20100026268.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110024351

    Original file (AR20110024351.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence. After a thorough review of the applicant’s record and the application he submitted, the analyst found no cause for clemency and therefore recommends to the Board to deny clemency.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014085

    Original file (AR20080014085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007801

    Original file (AR20090007801.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service; to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in...