Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: 25 February 2009     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and the six supporting 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: 080115
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080223   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Co, 70th BSB, Camp Casey, Korea 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070822, disrespect in deportment towards an NCO by not going to parade rest (070808), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $357, 14 days of extra duty and restriction (CG)

070807, disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO “to have a haircut every Monday” (070716), 14 days of extra duty and restriction (Summarized)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  37
Current ENL Date: 070525    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 08Mos, 29Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 04Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 051020-060524/HD
                                       USAR 050924-070515/GD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10/Petroleum Supply Spc   GT: 90   EDU: 4 YR COLL   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Lawrenceville, GA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 17 December 2007, 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 pattern of misconduct—for having received two Articles 15 (070807 and 070822), for disobeying lawful orders from NCOs and for having numerous negative counseling statements for disobeying lawful orders, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 9 January 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army 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.  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, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.
         
       There was 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 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. 
        
       The applicant contends that he was having family problems because his wife divorced him while he was in Korea and did not find out until 3 July 2007.  However, the divorce decree papers he provided with his application indicate he was divorced on 14 March 2005 and the record shows that he did not join the Army for the period under review until 25 May 2007.  Furthermore, when he joined the U.S. Army Reserve on 24 September 2005, for his first enlistment he was already divorced. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant’s issue that he wants to rejoin the Army; however, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If he wants to reenlist he should contact the local recruiter to determine his 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 if appropriate.  
       
       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. 
       
       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: 22 April 2010         Location: Atlanta, GA

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: [redacted]

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Radiologic examination report, finance and accounting document, department of treasury refund document, letter of denial for educational benefits, DD Form 214, self-authored statement, divorce decree and related 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 AR20090010010
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages