Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/03	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: 080111
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080129   Chapter: 14-12c(1)      AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (AWOL)	   RE:     SPD: JKD   Unit/Location: Home Det, Cbt Av Bde, Hunter Army Airfield, GA 

Time Lost: AWOL for 215 days (070221-070923), surrendered; Confinement Military Authorities for 28 days, however, this period is not annotated on the DD Form block 29, dates of time lost during this period. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 071210, SCM, AWOL (070221-070923); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $867 pay, and confinement for 28 days. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 051228    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 05Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 05Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 106   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 11 January 2008, 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-commission of a serious offense for AWOL, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, 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 and senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 January 2008, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than 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, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents she submitted, 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a general, under honorable conditions 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 acknowledges the independent document (Poplar Springs Hospital) submitted with the application indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  However, the evidence of record does not support the applicant's issue that she suffered from an adjustment disorder with a depressed mood and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition while on active duty.  Further, 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.  Finally, the analyst 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.  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 that the Board deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 25 November 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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090006425
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages