Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013710
Original file (AR20080013710.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 080903	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and 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: 080311
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080723   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, (Civil Conviction)	   RE:     SPD: JKB   Unit/Location: E Btry, 1/43 ADA, Camp Casey, Republic of Korea 

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: NIF    Current ENL Term: NIF Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 10Mos, 01Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 10Mos, 01Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G10 Food Service   GT: 81   EDU: NIF   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Bellflower, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 11 March 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Section II, Paragraph 14-9, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct— for conviction by civil court in foreign country, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than under honorable conditions.  The applicant did not submit a statement on 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 a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 13 May 2008, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights.  On 4 June 2008, 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 general, under honorable conditions.  On 14 July 2008, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable.
       

       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. 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: 090612         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 AR20080013710
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003909

    Original file (AR20080003909.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 27 February 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 numerous negative counseling statements concerning threats he made towards his wife and child, indebtedness and poor work performance, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 4 March 1998, the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017983

    Original file (AR20080017983.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090000818

    Original file (AR20090000818.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 12c by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Further in the record, on 9 July 1998, the separation authority 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 DD Form 214...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100013360

    Original file (AR20100013360.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002314

    Original file (AR20080002314.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 November 2004, 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 conducting herself in a discreditable manner and in a manner prejudicial to good order and discipline, including conduct violating accepted standards of personal conduct found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, the Civil Law, and time honored...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090001836

    Original file (AR20090001836.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. Further, the analyst determined that the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army. Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080013338

    Original file (AR20080013338.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 2007, 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 received two Field Grade Article 15’s and a Summarized Article 15 for violation of a lawful general order, providing a false statement, and disobeying a lawful order from an NCO, with a general under honorable...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | ar20090006531

    Original file (ar20090006531.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 21 November 2003, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012579

    Original file (AR20090012579.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. On 16 November 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002108

    Original file (AR20080002108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? On 7 May 2007, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty...