Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017165
Original file (AR20080017165.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 081017	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 in which he states, "I believe the type of discharge should be updated to Honorable Discharge.  It has been nearly 4 yrs and I am a law enforcement officer trying to use my Montgomery GI Bill.  I have lived with a general Discharge for Almost 4 yrs and Cannot use My benefits due to this type of Discharge."

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: 041101
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041110   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Troop Cmd, Landstuhl Regional Med Ctr, APO AE  09180 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 020626    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91J  Medical Sply Spec   GT: 105   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Cottondale, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 October 2004, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for having committed assault on his spouse and failure to follow orders and instructions from his leadership, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant was advised of his rights, 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 2 November 2004, 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 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 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 former Soldier’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.  The analyst noted the Applicant's issue, however, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the Applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Furthermore, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  In light 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: 5 August 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: No Change
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080017165
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120008397

    Original file (AR20120008397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 15 November 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions b.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090013189

    Original file (AR20090013189.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b by reason of pattern of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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 Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120009477

    Original file (AR20120009477.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 11 October 2011, 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. On 19 October 2011, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007154

    Original file (AR20090007154.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080016452

    Original file (AR20080016452.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 11 February 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080017815

    Original file (AR20080017815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 October 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct for disrespect, disobeying orders, being AWOL, and testing positive for marijuana, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110021144

    Original file (AR20110021144.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 27 April 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090016106

    Original file (AR20090016106.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 25 July 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120000710

    Original file (AR20120000710.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records, the issue and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 3 January 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review; VA documents, dated 20 July 2012.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019808

    Original file (AR20080019808.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The evidence of record shows the Applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct, with an uncharacterized separation of service and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3."