Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "I do not believe that my service records warrant a discharge for pattern of misconduct. The only disciplinary action was a single article 15, company grade."

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: 940825
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 941110   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HSC, 101st Military Intelligence Bn, Fort Riley, KS 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940525, Uttering worthless checks x 2, # 532 in the amount of $35.53 (940104), and # 538 in the amount of $67.64; reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $226 pay x 1 month (suspended), extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 931001    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 01Mos, 10Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 10Mos, 28Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-901213-910108/NA
                                       ADT-910109-910607/UNC
                                       USAR-910608-911001/NA
                                       ARNG-911002-920430/NA
                                       AD-920501-920509/HD
                                       ARNG-920510-930930/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31C10 Single Channel Radio Operator   GT: 127   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Riverside, 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 September 1994, 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 misconduct-pattern of misconduct for uttering worthless checks, with an honorable discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       The applicant consulted 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 service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  
       
       On 21 October 1994, 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, the issues 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 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 issue that his service records did not warrant a discharge for pattern of misconduct because the only disciplinary action was a Company Grade Article 15.  However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses (i.e., numerous other worthless checks prior to initiation of his administrative discharge proceedings), 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.
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends that the Board deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 14 May 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted the following documents:  Three (3) DD Forms 214, dated (910607), (920509), and (941110).



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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None































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 AR20090011731
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages