Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant.

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: 080314
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080326   Chapter: 14-12C    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, STB, 7th Sustainment BDE, Ft Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080114, derelict in performance of duties not to operate a POV on a military installation; reduction to E3, forfeiture of $403 pay per month for one month suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 080704, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 040602    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 09Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 09Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88L/Watercraft Engineer   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Sulphur Springs, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: Two character letters, one from his mother and one from his grandfather.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
        The evidence of record shows that on 13 February 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 being arrested on 050918, for drunk and disorderly conduct, resisting apprehension and simple assault on 060204, arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and subsequently found guilty of the offense on 060323, being arrested again for driving under the influence of alcohol on 070901, and being caught driving on a suspended license by his supervisor on 071030, 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.
       
       There are three MP Reports in the file; 4 September 2007 civil charge for driving under the influence, 4 February 2006, civil charge for careless or reckless driving and 18 September 2005 for simple assault, resisting apprehension, drunk and disorderly and underage drinking.
       
       There are two GOMORs in the file, one dated 8 November 2007 and another dated 14 April 2006, both for driving while intoxicated.

       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 all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted 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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Therefore, 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: 18 September 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090000638
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages