Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/01	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: 040823
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041102   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HSC, 62nd Engr Combat Bn (Heavy), 64th CSG, 13th CSC (Rear)(Provisional), Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040729, at Fort Hood, TX, on or about 6 March 2004, unlawfully struck an NCO in the face with a closed fist; reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $668.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty for 45 days (FG).

020924, at Fort Hood, TX, on or about 27 July 2002, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 4c, III Corps & Fort Hood Regulation 190-11; reduction to Private (E-1), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 22 March 2003, forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for two month, second month forfeiture, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated on or before 22 March 2003, 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:  18
Current ENL Date: 011115     Current ENL Term: 4 Years  15 months (Voluntary Extension)
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 02Mos, 08Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 02Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 44B10/Metal Worker   GT: 90   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (030114-030408)
Decorations/Awards: GWOTEM, GWOTSM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant.







VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 August 2004, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for being involved in an assault which resulted in an Article 15, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived the right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, 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.  On 30 September 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 evidence of record contains a GOMOR for unlawfully transporting a firearm dated 8 August 2002.

       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:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents 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 former Soldier’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.  The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he was pending a Medical Evaluation Board; however, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  Furthermore, the analyst determined that Army Regulation 635-200 provides that commanders will not take action to separate Soldiers for personality or adjustment disorders solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct.   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.  Therefore, 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: 6 January 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090005350
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages