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 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: 011205
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020117   Chapter: 14    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Btry, 2-2 FA Bn, Fort Sill, OK 

Time Lost: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was reported AWOL from (010802-010820), see DA Form 4187s, however, this period of AWOL is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29, dates of time lost during this period. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 011105, failure to report x 6 (011029), (011027), (011029), (011029), (011018), (011015); disrespectful in deportment towards a SSG  x 2 (011024), (011024), disrespectful in language towards a SSG (011024), and disobeyed a lawful order from a SSG (011024); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $521 x 2, $521 x 1 (suspended), extra duty for 30 days (FG).

011105, the suspension of punishment of forfeiture of $653 was vacated for new offense of failure to report  (011029).

010828, AWOL from (010801-010820), failure to report x 2 (010718), (010619), disobeyed a lawful order from a SGT (010713), and willfully and wrongfully damage the right Jeep taillight, of a value of about $85,  the property of a SGT (010719); reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $653 x 2,  $653 x1 (suspended), extra duty for 30 days (FG). 


Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020110, SCM, with intent to defraud, uttered worthless checks x 8 #551 $16.80 (011101), #552 $20.00 (011109), #601 $16.80 (011115), #670 $16.90 (011201), #632 $20.76 (011201), #652 $13.10 (011201), #656 $11.09 (011201), and #548 $15.10 (011202); steal money x 8  of a value of about $16.80 (011101), $20.00 (011109), $16.80 (011115), $16.90 (011201), $20.76 (011201), $13.10 (011201), $11.09 (011201), $15.10 (011202), and steal a check book of some value (011202); forfeiture of $130 x 1, and restriction for 30 days.  

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 980721    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 05Mos, 27Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05Mos, 27Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Siloam, AR
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 3 December 2001, 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 AWOL from (010801-010820) and received a Field Grade Article 15 for this offense (010828), received a vacation of punishment and another Field Grade Article 15 for failure to report, disrespectful and disobeying a lawful order (011029), received a vacation of punishment for failure to report (011121), received several formal counseling statements for failure to report and failure to obey orders, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived 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.  On 7 December 2001, 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 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 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the analyst considered the applicant’s quality of service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of service.  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: 5 June 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 AR20080013375
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages