Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/26	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: 040220
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040807   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: AFN, AP  

Time Lost: None 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030808, Disobeying a lawful general order x 3 (030712, 030716 and 030716).  The Article 15 document is void of information as to the punishment that was imposed on the applicant, (FG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  38
Current ENL Date: 021025    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 09Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 06Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-980128-021024/HD
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25R10/VI/Audio Eq Rep   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, KDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, OSR

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

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 February 2004, 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 misconduct—pattern of misconduct for between (April 03 and January 04), the applicant committed a violation of Article 86, failing to report to duty; violations of Article 92 wrongfully being off post after curfew; wrongfully being in an off-limits establishment; failing to maintain his room; smoking in his barracks; and additional violations of Article 91, for disrespecting and disobeying noncommissioned officers; and receiving a Company Grade Article 15 (030804). The unit commander recommended the applicant receive 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, 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 25 February 2004, 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 applicant's record contains a Military Police Report dated 16 July 2003 and 26 January 2004.

       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 documents, and issues 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 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 issues that his chain of command purposefully counseled him out of the Army without attempting to save his career; however, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  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.  
       
       Further, the applicant's issue in reference his IG and EO complaints showing evidence in support of his claim that while stationed at AFN-Korea, he experienced egregiously poor leadership; was a victim of alienation, harassment and discrimination; and that the EO investigation found many of his complaints to be founded and sited that there were leadership issues that needed to be addressed at AFN-Korea.  However, the Equal Opportunity Representative in his Memorandum for Record, dated 19 March 2004, states that he found complaints, 4, 6, and 9 to be possible concerns of EO.  Also upon looking into these issues he found they were not based on race.  He went on to state that there are some leadership issues, and recommend a full Commanders Climate Assessment with guidance from the unit's EOA.  
       
       In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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 April 2010         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None
 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 214; Military Record Documents; Associate of Electrical Engineering Technology Degree (5 December 1987); State Technical Institute of Memphis Official Academic Record (16 September 1992); Good Conduct Medal (28 January 1998-27 January 2001); and PC Repair Program Diploma Award (13 March 1998).  Total of 63 documents. 

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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 AR20090009907
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages