Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed 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: 061229
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070127   Chapter: 14-12B       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Co, 123d Main Support Bn, APO AE 09110 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061020 on or about 13 July 2006, drunk and disorderly, which conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; reduction to E-2, (suspended); forfeiture of $350 of pay for one month, (suspended);  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:  18
Current ENL Date: 041029    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  19weeks
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 2Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 2Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport   GT: 87   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  North Charleston, SC
Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 December 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, AR 635-200, by reason of patterns of misconduct—for being drunk and disorderly, disobeying a direct order and receiving a DUI, with an honorable discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action 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.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of genera, 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 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, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “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.  Furthermore, 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.   Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Furthermore, the analyst noted that 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. 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: 091007         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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090000796
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages