Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation submitted by the Applicant.  Applicant states, "My discharge was inequitable because it was an isolated incident in 41 months of dedicated service with no other adverse action or negative impact in future endeavors or undertakings, to myself or others, while active."

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: 020208
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020419   Chapter: 4-2b    AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Unacceptable Conduct	   RE:     SPD: JNC   Unit/Location: HSC, 92d ECB (H), Ft. Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: None; however, the record contains a memorandum from the unit commander, dated 12 Feburary 2002, indicating the Applicant was AWOL from 6 February 2002 until 11 February 2002.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 011121, Wrongful previous overindulgence of intoxicating liquor incapacitated for the proper performance of duties (011012), wrongfully and dishonorably failed to attend various required meetings to include initial ADAPCP screening (011003 and 011012); Reprimand to be filed in OMPF, forfeiture of $750.00 pay per month for two months, the second month suspended (General Officer).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 990609    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 11 Mos, 01Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: 02		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 21B  Cbt Engineer   GT: NA   EDU: College BA Degree   Overseas: Yugoslavia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFEM, ASR, NATO Medal (Yugoslavia)

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Hampton, VA
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he volunteers at the VAMC, Hampton, VA and teaches special needs students.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 1 December 2001, the Applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2b, AR 600-8-24, by reason of misconduct, moral or professional dereliction.  The Applicant was directed to show cause for his retention in the Army after receiving a Memorandum of Reprimand for refusing to take a breath analyzer test and failing to report for formation, as well as failure to conform to prescribed standards of military deportment, failure to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience and for having received an Article 15 for incapacitation for duty by reason of intoxication and conduct unbecoming an officer.  The Applicant was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal and request an appearance before a Board of Inquiry.  The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the initiation of proceedings and understood he had 30 days to make his election of rights.  He failed to make an election in a timely manner but made an election on 22 February 2002 and submitted a rebuttal requesting retention. The commanding General Officer  considered the request but recommended the Applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the Applicant’s elimination be accepted with issuance of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 19 April 2002, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       The record of evidence indicates the Applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand on 8 September 2000 for refusing to take a breathalyzer test on 1 September 2000. Additionally, the record of evidence includes a Punitive Memorandum of Reprimand from a General Officer, dated 21 November 2001, for unprofessional conduct for which the Applicant received a General Officer Article 15 on 21 November 2001.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for Officer Transfers and Discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of the Applicant’s military records, the issues, and the supporting documents he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  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 Army Officers.  By his misconduct, the Applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge.  The Applicant provided no 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 contention that his misconduct was an isolated incident, however, the record of evidence indicates otherwise; however, even if his misconduct was a single incident, the discrediting entry 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 a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the Applicant's misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline and diminished the quality of the Applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 3 September 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 AR20080019847
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages