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 supporting documents submitted by 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: 041022
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041101   Chapter: 14-12b     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Battery C, 3rd BN, 13th Field Artillery (MLRS), III Corps Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040607, failure to go to appointed place of duty (040513); reduced to E3; forfeiture of $370.00 per month for one month, suspended, to be remitted if not vacated before 041207; extra duty for 14 days; and restrictions to the limits of hospital, place of duty, barracks, PX for health and comfort items for 14 days. (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 030429    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 02Mos, 02Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 03Mos, 06Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 010726-030828/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13M10/Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Crewmember   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR, GWOTSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he is currently employed at Halliburton Energy Services for approximately three (3) years and provided character letters. The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) indicates the applicant received a waiver to reenlist and joined the Army National Guard on 070807 for a term of 4 years, 9 weeks.  







VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 6 October 2004, 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 patterns of misconduct, for misbehavior as a sentinel or lookout, disrespect towards a noncommissioned officer, communicating a threat, public intoxication, and failure to report, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 26 October 2004, 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.   Further, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. Furthermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the accomplishments outlined in the documents with his application.   However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments do 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.   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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090007110
______________________________________________________________________________




Page 3 of 3 pages