Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documuent 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: 060622
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061214   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: U.S. Army Recruiting Bn Tampa, Tampa, FL 

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:  29
Current ENL Date: 050509    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 07Mos, 06Days ?????
Total Service:  		11 Yrs, 11Mos, 15Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-970212-000706/HD
                                       RA-000707-040330/HD
                                       RA0040331-050508/HD
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13E14 Cannon Fire Direction   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii/Southwest Asia   Combat: Kuwait (991130-000420)
Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM, AAM-9, AGCM-3, NDSM-2, AFEM, NCOPDR, ASR, OSR

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












VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 26 June 2006, 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 pleading and waiving adjudication, pending sentence in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Tucson Division), for the offense of conspiracy to commit bribery of a public official and interference with commerce by extortion, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested 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 senior intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 31 August 2006, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights.  On 18 October 2006, the administrative separation board convened.  The applicant appeared with counsel.  The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 
       
        On 28 November  2006, DA, HQS Fort Mcpherson, Fort Mcpherson, GA, Orders 332-0004, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date:  14 December 2006.

       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, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and document that  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; however, after 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 concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by his service record to warrant a change to the discharge being reviewed. In view of the foregoing  the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends that the Board deny relief.
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 16 February 2010         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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090008745
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages