Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 080123
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080612   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, Victory Spt Bn, Fort Jackson, SC 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 031218    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  extended 19 months (060524)
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 05Mos, 25Days block 12c on the applicant's DD Form 214, net active service this period is incorrect, should read 04 Yrs, 05 Mos, 25 Days. 
Total Service:  		09 Yrs, 10Mos, 29Days  
Previous Discharges: 	RA-980714-010411/HD
                                       RA-010412-031217/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92W20 Water Treatment Spec   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-4, AGCM  

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Virginia Beach, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 23 January 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct for three driving while intoxicated offenses, one while assigned to Fort Rucker, AL; the second offense while assigned to Fort Jackson, SC;  and the third offense while under going advanced individual training (AIT) for Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) reclassification at Fort Lee, VA, while assigned to Fort Jackson, SC, and he received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for all three offenses, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board,  and did not indicate whether or not  a statement  was submitted  in his own behalf.  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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 February 2008, the separation approving authority referred the applicant's case to the standing administrative separation board.  On 27 February 2008, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 7 April 2008, 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 general, under honorable conditions.  On 30 May 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, approved the findings and recommendations of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a Military Police Report with additional offenses and additional persons related to the report dated 31 March 2007.
       
       The applicant's record contains two General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMOR) dated  21 May 2007 and 12 January 2006 for driving under the influence (Administrative). 

       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, but a general discharge 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, 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; 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 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, 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 AR20080013336
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages