Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of DD Form 293.

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: 061129
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070126   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: B Co, 1-38 IN Bn, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: AWOL for 162 days (051127-060508), surrendered; pretrial confinement for 118 days (060622-061019).  Total time lost 280 days.  

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:  24
Current ENL Date: 050909    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 07Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 10Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-000525-020711/HD
                                       RA-020712-050908/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B20 Infantryman   GT: 100   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (031104-041104)
Decorations/Awards: AAM,  AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR-2, OSB-2, CIB 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Modesto, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 November 2006, 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  AWOL from (051127-060613), 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,  waived consideration his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, 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 8 January 2007, 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 two Military Police Reports dated 10 July 2006, with additional persons related to the report and  26 November 2005, with additional offenses.

       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, the issues and documents he 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 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 indicating that he was discharged due to being diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while on active duty; however, the evidence of record does show that the applicant was being treated successfully by competent medical authority for his diagnosis of PTSD,  and was eventually recommended for out-patient day treatment to help transfer his gains he had made while at Travis Air Force Base to his new duty station at Fort Lewis, Washington. The record further indicated that the applicant at the time posed no threat to himself or others.  Subsequently, the applicant was  notified by his unit commander that he was initiating separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for  the period of AWOL from (051127-060613), which constituted an act of serious misconduct and not because of his diagnosis of PTSD.  Additionally, the analyst 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.  Finally, the analyst acknowledges the supporting document submitted with the application, which indicates the applicant was assigned  a 50% disability rating for his post traumatic stress disorder on 27 January 2007, a day after his discharge from the Regular Army by the Veterans Administration Office.  However, the analyst found that the issue and the supporting documents did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  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: 15 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 and voted to deny relief. 

        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 2    No change 3
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 AR20080014360
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages