Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 090209	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See attached DD Form 293 and supporting 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: 990498
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990611   Chapter: 14-12C     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HQ, 82d Airborne Div, Ft Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): Evidence of record indicates the Applicant was read an Article 15 but turned it down and that the Applicant was read a Summary Court-Martial but the command withdrew it.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 961121    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 06 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 11 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA - 940629-961120/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 12B Combat Engineer   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (4), AGCM, NDSM, HSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Bradenton, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has "been in a leadership positions at every place of employment", worked while attending school, actively participates in Habitat for Humanity and the United Way, "volunteered for the Fire Services for 6 about years", "was a member of many specialty teams for the fire services including the dive team, trench rescue and high angle rescue team", gives community service to "Max Defense, a verbal and physical confrontational seminar (self-defense) consisting of students of all ages" and that this "position as a manager gives me a multitude of opportunities to help in the community."

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 28 April 1999, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12C, by reason of misconduct -- for disrespect to a superior Non-Commissioned Officer (990203), with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 17 May 1999, 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.  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:  
       The analyst carefully examined the Applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the documents submitted with the application.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst determined that the Applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.  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.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 2009/04/23         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Yes.  A packet of exhibits were faxed to the ADRB with the Applicant's original DD Form 293.

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 is now inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the Applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, (it was a single incident with no malfeasance and, after the Applicant rejected the Article 15 and elected to go to courts-martial, the command withdrew the courts-martial action), and the Applicant's post service accomplishments (numerous accomplishments within his community) since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.  This action entails a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1."  





        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 5    No change 0
Reason -     Change 5    No change 0
(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: Secretarial Authority
Other: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090003113
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages