Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/29	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and documents submitted by the applicant.  The applicant claims his discharge was inequitable because his actions took place under the influence of alcohol and he received no assistance from the Army.  The applicant states he was young and immature, away from home missing family, had medical issues that are now rated at 10% disability by the VA.  The applicant is requesting an upgrade for benefits.

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: 030527
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 030715   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHB, 1st Bn, 7th FA BN, AE 

Time Lost: None listed in block 29 of the applicants DD 214, however in the applicants file there is a documented period of AWOL (030210-030216), total of 7 days, mode of return not in file.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030108 at or near Schweinfurt, Germany on or about 5 December 2002, as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs incapacitated for the proper performance of duties, disrespectful in language toward a SSG, on or about 3 November 2002, disrespectful in language toward a SGT and a SSG; reduction to E1, forfeiture of $552.00 of pay per month for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction; (FG).

021029 at or near Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo on or about 20 October 2002 and 22 October 2002, without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, guard duty; reduction to E3, suspended; forfeiture of $323 of pay, suspended; and extra duty for 14 days (CG).

021010 at or near Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo on or about 29 May 2002, 4 July 2002, without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, corrective training; and 30 May 2002, 25 June 2002 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, work call; and on 27 September 2002 and 6 October 2002 without authority fail to go at the time prescribed to your appointed place of duty, guard duty; extra duty for 7 days (CG).

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030311 Summary Court Martial, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, assault on a noncommissioned officer, fleeing apprehension, absent without leave from 10 February 2003 through 15 February 2003, failure to report on 10 February 2003, 20 February 2003 and 30 January 2003, drunk and disorderly conduct, wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor communicating a threat and breaking restriction; sentence of forfeiture of $575.40 of basic pay and confinement for 30 days, sentence adjudged on 14 March 2003. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 001107    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 08Mos, 09Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 08Mos, 09Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13F10 Fire Support Spc   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Kosovo, Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Fresno, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 27 May 2003, 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—for receiving a  Summary Court Martial, disobeying a noncommissioned officer, assault on a noncommissioned officer, fleeing apprehension, absent without leave from 10 February 2003 through 15 February 2003, failure to report on      10 February 2003, 20 February 2003 and 30 January 2003, drunk and disorderly conduct, wrongful overindulgence in intoxicating liquor communicating a threat and breaking restriction, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 6 June 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action and did not submit 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 1 July 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.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant’s record contained a Military Police Report dated 10 February 2003.

       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 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 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 analyst noted the applicant’s issue about his youth and immaturty; hoever, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity.  

             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
       
       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.
       
       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.  
       
       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: 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 AR20090011705
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages