Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/06	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 051107
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051123   Chapter: 14-12b      AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HSC 127th ASB, Hanau, Germany 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050921 without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty x2, to wit:  0700 hours accountability formation on or about 11 August 05 and 12 August 05; reduction to PVT (E2); forfeiture of $323.00, 14 days extra duty and restriction, suspended (CG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 030602    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 5Mos, 22Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 5Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F/Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 99   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWTEM, GWTSM

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 7 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct for failure to qualify with her M-16 x3, to be at appointed place of duty x3, displayed  inappropriate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer, and failed to pay her debt with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her 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 9 November 2005, 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:  
             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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issues and found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  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.  Further, 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.   Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 16 November 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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 her testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service and the circumstances surrounding her misconduct and as a result, it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the characterization of service to fully honorable.  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 4    No change 1
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5

								         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 AR20090005523
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages