Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 080822
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080903   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Rear Det, 3rd ACR, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL for 470 days (070413-080727), apprehended. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080814, AWOL (070413-080728); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $670 x 2 (suspended), and 45 days extra duty (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 060628    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  16 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 10Mos, 21Days ?????
Total Service:  		00 Yrs, 10Mos, 21Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21B10 Combat Engineer   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Yorba Linda, 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 22 August 2008, 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 (070413-080728), 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 28 August 2008, 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, 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, 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 in reference to being recommended for separation under provisions of Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200, however, the evidence of record shows that the applicant went AWOL and upon his return was given a mental status evaluation by competent medical authority and recommended that  the applicant be administratively separated under provisions of Chapter 5-17, AR 635-200.  However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant received an Article 15 for the period of AWOL and was subsequently recommended for administrative separation action under the provisions Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  The evidence of record further shows that the applicant was not referred to a medical evaluation board and Chapter 1, Paragraph 1-33(2), AR 635-200, states that the administrative separation proceedings will continue.  Chapter 1, Paragraph 1-33, further states that the General Court Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA), may direct in writing that the Soldier will be processed through the physical disability system when action under the UCMJ has not been initiated.  Also, Chapter 1, Paragraph 1-33(2), AR 635-200, states that the authority of (GCMCA) to determine whether a case is to be processed through medical disability channnels or under administrative separation provisions will not be delegated.  The (GCMCA) determined that the applicant would be separated administratively.  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: 8 July 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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080015118
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages