Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See the DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of the DD Form 293.

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: 940822
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 941109   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Co A, Engr Bn, 8th Army, Korea 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): (940623), At Pyongtaek, Republic of Korea, on or about 3 May 1994, operate a vehicle, to wit:  a Fort, four door passenger car, while drunk; reduction to E5, extra duty for 30 days. 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  26
Current ENL Date: 920625    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 04Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 07Mos, 29Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-860311-881215/HD
                                       RA-881216-900430/HD
                                       RA-900501-910902/HD
                                       RA-910903-920624/HD
Highest Grade: E6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52D20/Prime Power Production Spec   GT: 113   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM x 4, OSR x 4, AGCM x 2, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he graduated from a local community college and was scheduled to earn his bachelors degree in May 2009. Additionally, applicant states that he has been accepted in a graduate degree program.  The applicant states that he was the recipient of the 2005 United Way Giving Award and Volunteer of the Year for the local YMCA.  The applicant states that he is currently employed as a relief counselor for a community center for alcohol and drug addiction.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 22 August 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for driving while under the influence on 3 May 1994, 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, conditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board on 14 October 1994 under the condition that he receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge, 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 commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 23 September 1994, 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, the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.    There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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 issue and determined 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. Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.   The applicant submitted one document in support of the personal appearance hearing.
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 25 January 2010         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 AR20090007472
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages