Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See 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: 070313
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070327   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Medical Company, USA Medical Department Activity, Ft Irwin, CA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070124, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty x2 (070104 and 061215), willfully disobey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and wrongfully communicate a threat to a noncommissioned officer (070108); reduction to E1 and extra duty for 45 days, (FG).

061208, failed to obey an order (061127), extra duty for 14 days (Summ).

060120, fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty (051109), (the continuation sheet is not in the available record); reduction to E2, forfeiture of $333 pay for one month, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 060620, 14 days extra duty and restriction (CG) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 020603    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	4 Yrs, 09Mos, 25Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 09Mos, 25Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68K10/Medical Laboratory Sp   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Long Beach, WA
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submits several character letter. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 5 March 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 pattern of misconduct for receiving an Field Grade Article 15 on 070125 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on two occasions, disobeying a noncommissioned officer and communicating a threat to a noncommissioned officer, receiving a Summarized Article 15 on 060214 for failing to be at his appointed place of duty on two occasions and disobeying a noncommissioned officer on three occasions, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waive consulting counsel 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.  On 13 March 2007, 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 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.  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.  Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  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: 16 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
(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 AR20090006967
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages