Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/12	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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 031020   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHD, 7th Trans Bn,  507th Corps Support Grp (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030602, In that you did , at or near Fort Bragg, North Carolina, on or about 19 May 2003, with intent to deceive, sign an official record, to wit:  DD Form 689, which record was false in that you changed the quarters expiration date from 20 May 2003 to 26 May 2003, and was then known by you to be so false; reduction to the grade of E1 and forfeiture of 268.00, both suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 6 Aug 03; extra duty for 14 days. (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 030102    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 09Mos, 19Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 02Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 000725-010731/HD
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71L10/Admin Spec   GT: 99   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AGCM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Pensacola, FL
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 the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct for failing to go to her appointed place of duty on numerous occasions, failing to obey lawful orders from noncommissioned officers in her chain of command and for violating the barracks policy by having alcoholic beverage containers in her room, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  
       
       The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       On 17 September 2003, 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 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, the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.    
       
       The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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 and determined that the applicant was discharged in a prior period of honorable service under Chapter 8, Army Regulation 635-200 with pregnancy as the narrative reason for separation.  That period of honorable service was from 25 July 2000 to 31 July 2001.  The period of service under consideration in this request is from 2 January 2003 to 20 October 2003.  Further, 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.  Additionally, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.
            
       Therefore, 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: 23 April 2010         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted three documents.

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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090009065
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages