Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "My discharge should be change because when i first got to ft lee i was deny the fact to bring my wife there. Because i got there late from korea. I had just got married to my wife and was station in korea for a year. So when i got back my daughter was 1 years old and my marriage was just about over. I had to work things out with my wife so that i could keep her.  No one was willing to help me. My unit was getting ready to deploy again and and had just got there. the only thing i wanted was to get my family there at ft. lee so i went awol. I return to get my punishment but they drop me from an e-4 to an e-1 and took my pay.  Know i asked for help on that too they told me that they would help me and never did. I had a wife an kids to take care of now what was i suppose to do. so this time i was force to go awol and work under the table so my wife and kids would have a place to stay since no one else cared i had to.  I return and recieve and article 15 with extra duty and got seperate from the military. Army that is the branch."

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: 070802
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070811   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 148th QM Co, Fort Lee, VA 

Time Lost: AWOL x 7 for 362 (050816-051207), mode of return unknown; (051228-060129), (060130-060326), mode of return unknown; (060706-060805), (060806-061203); surrendered,  (070508-070513), and (070624-070625); mode of return unknown. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070611, AWOL (070508-070514), forfeiture of $650 pay x 2 months (suspended), and extra duty for 45 days (FG).

070126, AWOL (060701-061204); extra duty for 14 days and restriction for 14 days (CG). 

060331, AWOL x 2 (051228-060327), and (050816-051209); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $636 pay x 2 months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days, and an oral reprimand (FG).  

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: 040105    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 07Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 07Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR





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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 August 2007, 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 receiving three (3) Article 15s for AWOL dated 31 March 2006, 26 January 2007, and 11 June 2007, 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.  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 discharge.

       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 document 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 and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  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: 2 October 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 AR20080020067
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages