Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/25	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 040816
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041108   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHC, 160th SOAR (A), Fort Campbell, KY 

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:  24
Current ENL Date: 021003    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 01Mos, 06Days ?????
Total Service:  		08 Yrs, 04Mos, 14Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA-960625-990627/HD
                                       RA-990628-021002/HD
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 15U10/CH-47 Helicopter Repairer   GT: 121   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany-3, Bosnia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM-4, ARCOM, AGCM-2, GWOTSM, NDSM, AFEM, AFSM, NCOPDR, NATOMDL, ASR, OSR-2

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Sarahsville, OH
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 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 disobeying a direct order, failures to be at his appointed places of duty, and inability to adhere to unit policy, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       He was advised of his rights.  On 17 August 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than honorable.  The applicant did not submit a statement on 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 6 October 2004, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  
       
       On 20 October 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.

       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 and the issues 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that his discharge was based on one isolated period of time in over 8 years.  However, even though the applicant claims that his offense was isolated, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       In view of the foregoing, 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: 28 April 2010         Location: Washington, DC

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

































Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090011652
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages