Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/012/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and documents 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: 970925
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 971010   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 2nd BN, 1st AVN REGMT, APO, AE 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  26
Current ENL Date: 961021    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0 Yrs, 11Mos, 21Days ?????
Total Service:  		8 Yrs, 01Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 880303-880712/UNC
                                      USAR 880713-890821/NA 
                                          RA 890822-961020/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B/Light Wheeled Mechanic   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, Bosnia, SWA   Combat: SWA (901216-910507), Bosnia (970307-970515)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM x1, AGCM x2, NDSM, ARSM, NATO Medal, Defense of Saudi Arabia Campaign, SWA Cease Fire Campaign, Multi-national Forces Observers Medal, ASR, OSR w/NUM 2, KLM (Saudi Arabia), KLM (Kuwait), Liberation of Kuwait Campaign 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Rio Rancho, NM
Post Service Accomplishments: Letter from his employer stating that the applicant has worked for him for the past 5 years.  Additionally, there are numerous letters of recommendation.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 25 September 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense for committing various violations of the UCMJ including solicitation to commit adultery, fraternization, cruelty and maltreatment, sodomy, indecent acts, and self injury without intent to avoid service (attempted suicide), 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, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions 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 a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 3 October 1997, the separation authority approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

       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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue and determined that the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst determined that the applicant was incorrectly assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “4”.  Therefore, the analyst recommends that the reentry eligibility code be administratively changed to RE-3.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's reentry eligibility (RE) code, the analyst found 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.  Additionally, the Board noted an error on the DD Form 214 and directs ARBA Support Division-St. Louis, to administratively correct the RE code, block 27 to "3".
        
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 AR20090000644
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages