Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/11	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: Applicant states in effect he wants an upgrade to Honorable and a narrative reason change because he was injured, received poor medical treatment, was encouraged by an NCO to seek treatment outside of the Army, and was punished on his return.  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: 000425
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000516   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 504th PIR, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: AWOL for 24 days (000215-000308), returned to unit. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 000323, AWOL (000215-000309), willfully disobey a lawful order from a SSG (000313); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $201 pay x 2 months (suspended), extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 45 days (FG). 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 990322    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 01Mos, 02Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 01Mos, 02Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92G1P Cook   GT: 107   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Moses Lake, WA 
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard State of Washington on (030416), for a period of seven (7) years.  He was awarded two (2) AAMs, promoted to SGT/E-5, and was discharged from the Army National Guard with an honorable characterization of service and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve.  Also, the applicant claims he is employed with the State of Washington in the offender re-entry program, and attending graduate school for forensic psychology with hopes of becoming a psychologist. 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 25 April 2000, 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 receiving a Field Grade Article 15 on (000313) for  AWOL (000215-000309), and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (000313), 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, 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       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, 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 issues and documents 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.  
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue he was forced to receive medical care outside the chain of command. 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.  
       
       The record does not support the applicant’s issue, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the applicant submitted no evidence that his noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) supported his action to seek medical attention outside the chain of command. 
       
       Regarding the applicant's issue of going out of ranks to seek medical attention from an othopedic surgeon.  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.
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined in the documents 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.
       
       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 May 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted the following documents: VA Identification; Military Identification; Applicant's Declaration; Initial Article 15; Part of Discharge Packet; Medical Reports and Profiles; Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Reports and Tests for the Years (2001-2004); Civilian Doctor Notes and Chiropractic Care Results for the Years (2004-2006); Army Training, Promotions, Records, and Schools for the Years (2004-2006); Discharge and Award; Miscellaneous Letters of Commendation, School Records, and Civilian Achievements for the Years (2002-2007).

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 1    No change 4
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 AR20090008982
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages