Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states "1.  At the time of my mistake I was new to Germany and I was still immature. 
2.  This was an isolated event, and before or after his big mistake I did not get in any trouble, or as much as receive an article 15.  3.  During the investigation I received alot of support from people in the states and from Soldiers I worked around and knew that what happened was not the person I am.  4.  My command did not give me the chance to be rehabilitated as a Soldier.  5.  I was given this really bad name and was painted out to be a bad Soldier.
6.  I was mistreated as a Soldier, during the investigation I was put on staff duty every day from 0900 to 1700.
7.  I had to deal with a great deal of stress caused by my team leader at the time to the point I was on medications.  8.  I had to deal with racial discrimination from my own chain of command, and when I tried to speak out I was labeled a cry baby and that I was just trying to get out of trouble by saying something.  9.  Other Soldiers that got in trouble were not treated as nearly as differently as I was.  10.  I served both punishments 30 days confinement and hard labor.  11.  I had people in my chain of command that would do what ever they could to make things worst for me."

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: 080911
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 081009   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct, (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 40th EN Bn, APO AE 09034 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): The applicant's defense counsel mentions in a memorandum the applicant pled guilty at a Summary Court-Martial for driving under the influence of alcohol, however, this document is not part of the available record. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 060905    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  22 Weeks/with an approved medical waiver (060824)
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 01Mos, 05Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 01Mos, 05Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 62B10 Construction Equipment Repairer   GT: 95   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Detroit, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 


VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 18 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 wrongful appropriation of a black Audi automobile, the property of a SGT, and physically control said vehicle while drunk, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration his case by an administrative separation board, and submitted 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The senior intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, however, this document is not authenticated by his signature.  On 29 September 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.
       
       The applicant's record contains a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand dated 21 December 2007 for driving a stolen vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and without a valid USAREUR drivers license (Administrative).

       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 and determined that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Further, even though 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 single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Finally, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service, reason for discharge to include the reentry elgibility (RE) code was 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 June 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: No

Witnesses/Observers: No 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 125 pages of additional pages of documents in support of his personal appearance hearing.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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 AR20080020087
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages