Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/22	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040428   Chapter: 14       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 4/64th AR Bn, Fort Stewart, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL X 1 for 6 days (040106-040111), surrendered..

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040210, AWOL (040106-040112), reduction to E1, forfeiture of $586.00 pay per month for two months, and 45 days extra duty and restriction, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 020103    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 03Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 03Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10/M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 104   EDU: GED   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (020901-030826)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Records show that the applicant enlisted in the Alabama National Guard (060317) for a period of 5 years and 33 weeks and was later discharged (071022) with a honorable discharge.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for disrespecting and disobeying noncommissioned officers, going AWOL (040106 to 040112), failure to report  (FTR) on numerous occasions, 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.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It states that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor, and is appropriate when the quality of the Soldier’s service is so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.  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 during the period of enlistment under review, the document, and the issue he submitted, 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 his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his 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 claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) caused his general, under honorable conditions discharge, and the post service diagnosis document making reference to service sonnection for PTSD, however, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from PTSD and no evidence has been submitted by the applicant to support his claims that his discharge was the result of any medical condition.  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: 21 April 2009         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: Applicant's uncle 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted 19 pages of additional documents in support of his personal appearance hearing.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is inequitable..  The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the length of the applicant’s service to include his combat service, and his post service accomplishment (i.e. Honorable Discharge from the Army National Guard), mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 3    No change 2
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 AR20090001501
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages