Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents submitted by 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: 010606
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010703   Chapter: 14-12c     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Western Regional Veterinary Command, Ft. Lewis, Washington 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010430, Assaulted spouse (010128) by shoving and then grabbing by the back of the neck, reduction to the grade of E3; forfeiture of $365.00 pay for 1 month, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (010729); extra duty for 30 days; restricted to the limits of Fort Lewis, WA for 30 days (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 971016    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 8Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		7 Yrs, 6Mos, 3Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-950526-951101/HD
                                       USAR-951102-971015/ADT (DD Form 214 illegible) UNC (Consecutive Service)
                                                                              

Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71L10/Administrative Specialist   GT: 93   EDU: HS   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, HSM, ASR, OSR; ARCOM not listed on DD214.

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 06 June 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct— commission of a serious offense for receiving  a Field Grade Article 15, repeated violations of spouse abuse, and rehabilitation failure in Moral Reconation Therapy, 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, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions, 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 15 June 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, approved the conditional waiver submitted by the applicant, and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  
       
       The record contains a Military Police Report dated 11 March 2001.

       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 issue; however, the analyst determined the applicant had many legitimate avenues to which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill do 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. 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: 2 December 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
								         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 AR20090006331
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages