Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/30	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: 020222
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020314   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: C Battery, 1/27th Field Artillery, 41st Field Artillery Brigade, APO AE 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2, from (001204-001206) for 3 days; apprehended; and AWOL, from 010221-011206; for 290 days; mode of return-NIF. Total time lost 293 days.  

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020124, AWOL, on or about 010221-011206; forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for 2 months; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG) 

Article 15; 001227, AWOL, on or about 001204-001206; failed to go to his appointed place of duty on or about 001121; reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $251.00 pay per month for two months; extra duty for 45 days (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: 000519    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 9 Days The net active service this period item 12c on the DD Form 214, is incorrect; should be: 1 Year, 0 Months, 9 Days. The time lost in block 29 on the DD Form 214, was not subtracted from the net active service this period, nor was the 3 day period of AWOL, not shown in block 29. 
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13M10 MLRS Crewmember   GT: 119   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: Germany (001010-020314)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 February 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he went AWOL from 010221-011206; AWOL from 001204-001206; disobeyed a lawful order from SGT x 2, on 010107; 010108; failed to report to extra duty on 010105, and failed to report to work call formation on 001121; with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 7 March 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant's request to waive his rights and personal appearance before an administrative separation board, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 

       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 or general 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 and found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  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.  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his 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.    Additionally,  the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s issue outlining his successful accomplishments since separation from active duty.  The applicant is to be commended for his efforts.  However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.  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: 25 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 AR20090001679
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages