Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/01	Prior Review: No    Prior Review Date: 

I.  Applicant Request:  Change to Honorable and Change Reason For Separation
REASON: Yes    REASON CHANGE: Yes    RE CODE CHANGE: Yes

Issues: 144.9950 Chp 14, E, Misconduct, Character 
 
100.0300 Change of Reenlistment Codr (RL) 
 


II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   


See Attachments:  
       Legal: Yes    Medical: No    Minority Opinion: No    Exhibits: Yes

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	General Discharge Cert   Date: 2006/06/01
Discharge Received:	General Discharge Cert	   Date: 2006/06/01  
Chapter: 14   AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct - Civil Confinement	   RE: RE-4A     SPD: jkl  
Unit/Location: 101st Airborne / Fort Campbell

Time Lost: 

Reason: Civil Confinement 
Date From: 2006/01/01 
Date To: 2006/05/01 


Article 15s and Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 

Offense: DWI 
Offense Date: 2006/01/01 
Punishment: Art 15 


Counseling Records Available: No


IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  
Current ENL Date: 2005/01/01   Current ENL Term: 3 Years  
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 6 Mos, 23 Days 
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 6 Mos, 23 Days 

Previous Discharges: 




Highest Grade:	Private First Class - Enl Pay Grade 3	Performance Ratings Available: No
MOS: 91M  GT: 103  EDU: High School  Overseas:  No Combat: No
Decorations/Awards: 

Award/Decoration: Army Svc Ribbon 
 



V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  arlington,VA 22000
Post Service Accomplishments: 
I done better.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances: 
       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.  Retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.  Because of the civilian conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable (or general discharge).  (The Board decided that an Administrative Separation Board was properly conducted and that the separation authority determined the specific offenses warranted separation.)  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his (her) service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
       

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       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.  Retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.  Because of the civilian conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable (or general discharge).  (The Board noted that an Administrative Separation Board was properly conducted and that the separation authority determined the specific offenses warranted separation.)  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his (her) service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
       
       
       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:
       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.  Retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.  Because of the civilian conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable (or general discharge).  (The Board noted that an Administrative Separation Board was properly conducted and that the separation authority determined the specific offenses warranted separation.)  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his (her) service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: ADRB	Date: 2009/01/30         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Did the Applicant Appear?  No

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Exhibits Submitted: 214, letter from minister, police check

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.  Retention is normally only considered in exceptionally meritorious cases when clearly in the best interests of the Army.  Because of the civilian conviction, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable (or general discharge).  (The Board noted that an Administrative Separation Board was properly conducted and that the separation authority determined the specific offenses warranted separation.)  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his (her) service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  The Board, being convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.

        
IX.  Board Decision						

Board Vote:
Character – 
0 Change  2   No Change 
Reason -    
0 Change 2    No Change 
(Board member names available upon request)

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:


EDGAR J. YANGER			 
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board


Issue a new DD Form 214  No				
Change Characterization to:			         
Change Reason to: 
Other:										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration: No   Grade: 
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090000527
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4