Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/19	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: 050201
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050207   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHC, 1-22 IN Regt, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL for 3 days (040622-040624), the applicant was returned to the unit. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 041104, AWOL (040622-040625), failure to report x 3, willfully disobeying a lawful order from a CPT, and willfully disobeying a lawful order from a NCO; reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $596 pay x 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (suspended), (FG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 030305    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 11Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 11Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91W10 Health Care Spec   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (031123-040109)
Decorations/Awards: PH, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Hutto, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
             The evidence of record shows that on 6 November 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct for AWOL (040622-040625), failure to report x 3 (041013), (041013), (041021), willfully disobeying a lawful command from a 1LT (041027), and willfully disobeying a lawful order from a 1SG (041027), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, 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 honoralble conditions discharge.  On 1 February 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under other 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 and the issues he 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 his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his 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 regarding the reason for his discharge as misconduct and that he was subsequently diagnosed while in the service with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was subject to a medical chapter.  However, on 25 June 2004, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed by competent medical authority with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorder or significant features, physical disorder, and a psychosocial stressor (i.e., combat).  Further, the medical authority stated that the applicant has no medical condition that would warrant referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) in accordance with (IAW) AFI 48-123.  He related further that the applicant was receiving care that meets or exceeds the services indicated for someone with his diagnoses and condition.  The medical authority recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the Army in accordance with (IAW) Paragraph 5-17, (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions), AR 635-200.  This action would be in the best interest of the United States Army and  the Soldier.  On 6 November 2006, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct, and not because of his diagnosis of PTSD or any other medical condition.  Additionally, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted, the applicant fully understood the difference between right and wrong when he committed the misconduct that caused the unit commander to initiate the separation action under review.  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: 14 October 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 1    No change 4
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 AR20090006490
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages