Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/03	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: 060228
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060331   Chapter: 14-12c (1)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (AWOL)	   RE:     SPD: JKD   Unit/Location: Echo Battery, 1st Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, TX 

Time Lost: AWOLx 1, for 30 days (051106-051205). The applicant returned to her unit. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060223, AWOL (051106-051206); reduction to the grade of (E-1); suspended until 060822; forfeiture of $636.00 pay per month for two months; suspended until 060822; extra duty and restriction for 45 days, suspended until 060822; (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: 020815    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 16 Days The date entered active duty this period item 12a on the applicant's DD Form 214 is incorrect; should be: Year(s) 2002, Month(s) 08, Day(s) 15. see DD Form 4/3. 
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 6 Mos, 16Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14T10 Patriot Oper/Maint   GT: 121   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea (030717-040424)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, GWTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states in her issue that she is in Law Enforcement and would like to attend college.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 28 February 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c (1), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that she received a Field Grade Article 15 for being AWOL for a period of 30 days, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant waived 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 12 March 2006, 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 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 her 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; however, 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.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, the analyst noted 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.  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: 16 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 AR20090005789
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages