Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 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: 010605
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020115   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, Portland Recruiting Bn, Fort Lewis, WA 

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:  32
Current ENL Date: 990909    Current ENL Term: Indefinite Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 04Mos, 07Days ?????
Total Service:  		15 Yrs, 05Mos, 21Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 860725-890112/HD
                                       RA 890113-920804/HD
                                       RA 920805-941218/HD
                                       RA 941219-990908/HD
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 79R3P/Recruiter   GT: 112   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska, Hawaii, Saudi Arabia   Combat: SWA (910128-910308)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-3, AAM-4, NDSM, SWA-1BSS, NCOPDR-2, GCM-4, KLM, ASR, OSR-2, CIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Yreka, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: Has a steady job, is a leader in a Boy Scout troop, a deacon at his church, and junior high Sunday school teacher.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 5 June 2001, 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—for having been convicted by a civil court and for the commission of serious offenses that included disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer, having an unauthorized relationship including sexual activity on four occasions, and providing alcohol to minors on three occasions, misuse of a government vehicle on two occasions, indecent exposure, sodomy and indecent acts on several occasions, sexual battery, attempted indecent acts with a woman under the age of 18, dissuading a witness from reporting a crime, and annoying and molesting a minor, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 2 July 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate senior commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 17 September 2001, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 12 October 2001, 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 4 December 2001, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  
       
       The record contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 26 August 2001, and a Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6, dated 4 May 2001.

       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 applicant’s military record, and the issue and documents submitted with his application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.    There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general 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 that even though a single incident, within three months as stated by the Applicant, the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of NCOs in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.  Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 25 June 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 AR20080014519
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages