Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/16	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: 070607
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070703   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, 224th MI Bn, Hunter Army Airfield, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050414, at Fort Stewart,GA, on or about 31 March 2005, ,with intent to deceive, made a false statement to a warrant officer; on 30 March 2005 the applicant did without authority leave his place of duty, Wright Army Airfield; restriction to the limits of Fort Huachuca, AZ for 14 days (CG). 

061206, at Hunter AAF, GA on or about 29 September 2006, the applicant willfully disobeyed an order from his 1SG, not to drive his POV; in doing so the applicant also operated a motor vehicle on a road without a valid driver's license in his immediate possession; extra duty for 14 days and restriction to the Battalion area, dining/medical facility, and place of worship.  He was not allowed to operate a POV on the installation (CG).

070327, at Hunter AAF, on or about 14 January 2007, without authority, the applicant left his place of duty, to wit: Battalion Staff Duty;  disobeyed an order from a noncommissioned officer, to call him if he couldn't stay on duty at Hunter AAF; on 14 January 2007, with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to a noncommisioned officer  regarding visiting the hospital for treatment on that day; reduction to Specialist (E-4), extra duty for 45 days, restriction for 45 days (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: 031017    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 08Mos, 16Days ?????
Total Service:  		6 Yrs, 08Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 001005-031016/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 96U10/Tactical UAV Operator   GT: 102   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq x2 (030106-040110, 060503-070430)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM (2), NDSM (2), GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, NCOPDR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Since his discharge from the Army, the applicant states that he has completed the ScanEagle Maintenance and Basic Operator courses (Certificate with application), and deployed to Iraq as a civilian UAV operator in support of the US Marines OIF mission.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 22 May 2007, 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 misconduct—for numerous violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 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, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, 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 honorable conditions discharge.  The separation authority subsequently 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 acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with his application.  However, 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.  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: 31 July 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090006644
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages