Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents 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: 951211
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960419   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: A Co, USAG, Fort McPherson, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 951024, wrote 23 worthless checks, each in the amount of $150 (950825-950911), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $567 x 2, 45 days extra duty (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  25
Current ENL Date: 940629    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 09Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  		09 Yrs, 00Mos, 20Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 900301-940628/HD
                                       USAR 870918-880319/NA
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71L10/ Admin Spc   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AGCM-2, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Taunton, MA
Post Service Accomplishments: Working to became a real state agent, paralegal, nursing assistant, and a fitness nutritionist.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 11 December 1995, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense, for having uttered 23 worthless checks in the amount of $3,435.00 (950825-950911), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  On 4 January 1996, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her 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 with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 14 February 1996, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  On 1 March 1996, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of under other than honorable conditions.  On 22 March 1996, the Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the administrative separation board proceedings and requested a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.  On 5 April 1996, the separation authority having reviewed the request for reconsideration submitted by the Applicant, approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains a Bar to Reenlistment dated 24 October 1995.

       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 and documents 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.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  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: 29 May 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 AR20080012928
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages