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: 021029
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 021127   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 508th Trans Co, 765th Trans Bn, Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 021004, on or about 4 June 2002, with intent to deceive, signed an official record, to wit: DA Form 3955, which record was totally false, and was then known by the applicant to be so false; reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $552.00 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitte if not vacated before 2 December 2002, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG).

020731, at Fort Eustis, VA, on or about 25 June 2002, without authority, the applicant left his place of duty in the unit motor pool; and with intent to deceive make a false official statement to an NCO; reduction to Private First Class (E-3), forfeiture of $342.00 pay per month for one month, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 27 January 2003, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

011120, at Fort Eustis, VA, on or about 17 October 2001, without authority, left his place of duty in the unit motor pool; forfeiture of $350.00 pay per month for one month, extra duty for 14 days (CG).


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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  25
Current ENL Date: 000727    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 04Mos, 00Days Block 18 of the DD Form 214 reflects a prior enlistment period of 000727-040726 which is incorrect.  The applicant's first term of enlistment is 980722-000726, a military service period of 02 years, 00 months, and 04 days. 
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 04Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 980722-000726/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10/Light Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic   GT: 104   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), AGCM, NDSM, ASR

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


VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 October 2002, 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 receiving a Field Grade Article 15 for making a false official statement, and for twice not being at the appointed place of duty and receiving a Company Grade Article 15, 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 honorable conditions discharge.  On 4 November 2002, 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 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 analyst noted the applicant’s issue; however, determined the 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.  The analyst acknowledges the applicant's in-service accomplishments outlined with the application and in the documents with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.   Furthermore, the applicant fully understood the difference between right and wrong when he committed the misconduct that caused the unit commander to initiate the separation.  In view of the foregoing, with the exception of the administrative change recommended above, 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: 9 December 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 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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090006676
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages