Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and 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: 090429
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090528   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Kaiserslautern, GE 

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:  28
Current ENL Date: 080508    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  7 months
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 05Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 02Mos, 01Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 030508-060525/HD
                                       RA 060526-080508/HD
Highest Grade: E-5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68W10/Health Care Spc   GT: 109   EDU: 1 YR COLL   Overseas: SWA, Germany   Combat: Iraq (050113-051103)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM-2, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM w/CS, ASR, OSR, CAB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Kansas City, KS
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 April 2009, 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 assault and battery by striking a female on the face (090131), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 30 April 2009, 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.  On 11 May 2009, 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 record contains several MP Reports as follows:
       MP Report dated 27 February 2009, assault and battery.
       MP Report dated 22 March 2008, assault and battery.
       MP Report dated 20 January 2006, drunken driving.
       MP Report dated 14 September 2004, rape by force and burglary, insufficient evidence.

       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.  
       
       The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former Soldier’s 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 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 his prior MP Reports for offenses at different duty stations, in which punishment was imposed, played a factor in his discharge.  However, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  He was discharged because he committed the offenses of assault and battery on 31 January 2009 as indicated in the commander's letter of notification.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to deny relief. 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 17 March 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010023
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages