Applicant Name:  ?????

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

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed 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: 040220
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040313   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 362nd Signal Company, 41st Signal Battalion, Korea; APO, AP 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031114, Unlawfully pushed PFC on or about 030925; unlawfully choked PFC on or about 030925; assaulted SGT, a noncommissioned officer on or about 030925; reduction to Private First Class (E-3); extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 020201    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31P10 Microwave Sys Oper Maint   GT: 118   EDU: 118   Overseas: Korea (021208-040313)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant stated in his issue; that he is currently enrolled at ITT Technical Institute, Knoxville, TN.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 February 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct; in that he was counseled for failing to report to formation, on 030212; apprehended by the military police for urinating in public on 030601; involved in a fray with an individual on 030914; assaulted a PFC on 030925; failing to report to 0700 formation on 040122, and counseled for attempting to avoid Physical Training on 040124, 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 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 20 February 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  
       
       The record contains a Military Police Report dated 13 June 2003.

       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, but a general discharge 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 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 applicant'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 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; however, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that he was discharged without explanation.  Further, 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.  Additionally, 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.  In view of the foregoing, 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: 30 September 2009         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 AR20090000826
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages