Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/07	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: Wants to rejoin, was young, family problems.

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: 021007
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 021031   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: B Btry, 1st Bn, 377th FA Regt, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 020422    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 06Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 03Mos, 07Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	 RA 001128-020421/HD
                                        RA 980724-001127/HD
                                        USMC 940623-980622/NIF                                     
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B20/Cannon Crewmember   GT: 94   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, NCOPDR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Hope Mills, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 24 September 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense for assault consummated by battery and failure to report to his designated place of duty, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.           On 8 October 2002, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative sepration board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army 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 8 October 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.
       
       The record contains an MP Report dated 6 May 2002.

       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 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 applicant contends that his former first sergeant was sleeping with his wife for which he was court-martialed and this really hurt him and allowed his anger to end his career.  The method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  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, 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.  Additionally, 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 if appropriate.  
       
       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: 19 April 2010         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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 AR20090007575
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages