Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/04	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 070403
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 070511   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Trp, 1/32d Cav Sqd, Fort Campbell, KY 

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:  26
Current ENL Date: 070124    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 03Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		09 Yrs, 03Mos, 25Days Based on supporting documents found in the available records (i.e., enlistment contracts, DD Form 214's, NBG Form 22, and the Army National Guard Retirement Points History Statement the applicant's Total Service should be: 09 yrs, 03 mos, and 25 days. 
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-970407-990301/NA
                                       AD-990302-990423/NA
                                       USAR-990424-030209/NA
                                       OAD-030210-031127/HD
                                       USAR-031128-040924/NA
                                       USARCG-040925-050413/HD
                                       ARNG-060123-070123/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman   GT: 120   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None (The applicant makes reference to having been deployed twice, however, the available records is void of any information to support the applicant's claim).
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, ARCAM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, AFRM (w/M Device)

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed





VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       Evidence of record shows that on 3 April 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 patterns of misconduct for multiple offenses of failing to report; dereliction of duty; disrespecting commissioned and noncommissioned officers; and tampering with a urinalysis, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, 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 3 May 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 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the document, and the issues he submitted, 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 his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By his 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 issues and acknowledges his prior in-service accomplishments outlined with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the available record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Additionally, 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.  In view of the foregoing, 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

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 November 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 AR20090008423
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages