Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/03	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: 960805
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960810   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 12th Chemical Co, APO AE 09031 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960624, a married man, did wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife between (950817-960508), and failure to pay just debt between (960123-960528); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $400 x 2, and extra duty for 45 days (FG).

960214, uttered four worthless checks totalling $2,545; check # 120, $500 (951212), check # 121, $700 (951213), check # 206, $745 (960102), and check # 706, $600 (960109); reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $250 x 1 (both suspended), and 14 days extra duty (CG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 941123    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 06Mos, 27Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-930114-941122/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 54B10 Chemical Operations Spec   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia/Korea (Post Service)   Combat: Iraq (070825-08053 Post Service)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, NDSM, ASR; AAM-3, AGCM-3, ARCAM, NDSM-2, ICM-W/CS, GWOTSM, KDSM, HSM, AFRM-W/"M" DEV-2, OSR-2, UNM, MFOM, CAB (All Post Service)

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Hattiesburg, MS
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard State of Mississippi (020315) for two years, was subsequently ordered to active duty for service in Iraq, awarded numerous awards and decorations.  The applicant  was also promoted to SGT/E-5.




 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 5 August 19996, 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 wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived 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 7 August 1996, 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 and the issues 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 issue that the offenses were solated.  However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the analyst noted the accomplishments outlined with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments 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: 29 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The Board determined that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, and his post service accomplishments (i.e., service in the National Guard State of Mississippi; to include his combat service, and his promotion to SGT/E-5), mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  
      
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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 AR20080015310
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages