Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/10	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 990120
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990316   Chapter: 14-12c(1)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKD   Unit/Location: Company B, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, GA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980903, Failed to obey a lawful order issued by a LTC between on or about 980722 to 980801; reduction to (E-2); extra duty and restriction for 45 days; forfeiture of $519.00 pay per month for two months; suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 981201; (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  23
Current ENL Date: Reenl/971104    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 4 Mos, 13 Days ?????
Total Service:  		5 Yrs, 2 Mos, 12 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR NIF-940104/NA
                                       ADT 940105-940520/UNC
                                       USAR 940521-950201/NA
                                       RA 950202-971104/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91B1G Medical Spec   GT: 103   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait (960901-970106)
Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), GCMDL, NDSM, ASR, EIB

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 January 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he failed to obey a lawful order issued by a LTC, by wrongfully using his Government American Express Credit Card for unofficial business expenditures, 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 March 1999, 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 a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand-for driving while under the influence of alcohol dated 19 November 1998, (Administrative). 

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 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, but a general discharge 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 applicant'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 his 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; however, even though a single incident, the analyst concluded that the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  Further, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct-Commission of a Serious Offense” and the separation code is "JKQ."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  Additionally, 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.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Also, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       Finally, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26 as separation code “JKD."  In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends to the Board that an administrative correction be made to block 25, to read separation authority: “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c,” and block 26, separation code to read "JKQ," which was approved by the separation authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's separation authority and the separation code, 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: 13 January 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA



VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26, as separation code JKD.  In view of the error, the Board directed that an administrative correction be made to block 25, to read separation authority: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c" and block 25, separation code to read "JKQ" as approved by the separation authority.  Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's separation authority and the separation code, the Board determined that the reason for separation was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
        
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: The Board directs ARBA Support Division St. Louis to correct block 25 to reflect AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c; and block 26 to reflect JKQ.										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090007720
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages