Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/16	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: 060817
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060908   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Medical Company, USA MEDDAC, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060329, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty (060216); reduction to Private (E-2), suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (060929); restriction and extra duty for 14 days (CG) 

The suspension of the punishment of reduction to Private (E-2) imposed on (060329) was vacated, effective date-NIF, based on the applicant's offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty (060501)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 050930    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 2 Mos, 26 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG 020613-030112/NA
                                       IADT  030113-030909/HD
                                       ARNG 030910-040425/NA
                                       OAD   040426-050929/HD
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10 Health Care Specialist   GT: 118   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (041006-051004)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ICMDL, ASR, AFRMDLw/ M Device

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 August 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (2), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct; in that he received a Company Grade Article 15 on (060329), for failing to report, and since that time he has been late or absent from numerous formations, made a false official statement and violated federal law related to patient information privacy (HIPAA), 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, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 25 August 2006, 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, and the issue 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 applicant'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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that his discharge was improperly issued; however, the applicant has not submitted any probative evidence and the analyst has not otherwise relied upon an issue of propriety to change the discharge.  The analyst concluded that the discrediting entries constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by incidents of misconduct provides the basis for a characterization.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant's incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  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: 25 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 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 AR20080014664
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages