Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he believes there was a personality conflict with his NCOIC. The DUI was a lapse of judgment on his part, but was precipitated by a transfer to a stressful assignment.  

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: 080422
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080703   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 3rd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070208, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty (070130); extra duty and restriction for 14 days (Summarized)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 060104    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 6 Mos, 0 Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 11 Mos, 29 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 020514-020723/NA
                                       RA 020724-021217/UNC
                                       ARNG 050209-051003/NA
                                       ADT    050627-050917/UNC
                                       ARNG 050918-060103/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 27D10 Paralegal Specialist   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (060801-071001)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, ICMDL, GCMDL, NDSM, GWTSM, MUC, ASR, OSR, OSB (2) 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 22 April 2008, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he left his ID Card unsecured and lost his ID Card on diverse occasions; failed to obey lawful orders and regulations on diverse occassions, slept inside of tactical government vehicles on diverse occasions, failed to report to p hysical training formation on (061216), wrongfully disposed of government property on (070122), negligently endangered other service members by pointing a weapon at them on (070129), failed to report to physical training formation x 2, on (070130), (070130), arrested by the HPD for driving under the influence with a BAC of .122 on (080229), sleeping in training conducted by the Division Chief Legal NCO, and not being in the proper uniform on diverse 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 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 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 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 the entire 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 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 and found that before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  The analyst further noted that the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier.  The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome the noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined that the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.  Additionally, The analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  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: 8 June 2009         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 1    No change 4
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 AR20090003357
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages