Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he request a review of his discharge and an upgrade to an honorable for reenlistment purposes. He was involved in a fight while in the military and was discharged for a pattern of misconduct, as shown in the sworn statements. A SGT swung at him which in turn caused a fight. The SGT again tried to swing after the fight was broken up.  

Please see attached statements as to this event. He tried to handle this in a manner without fighting, but was swung at first. This is all evident in his military records that he has attached. The SGT admits in his sworn statement that he made lude comments to him. He ask for an upgrade in his discharge to an honorable discharge based on the information that is in his records. He thanks the Board for there prompt attention to this matter.

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: 090326
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090514   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Company, 307th Brigade Support Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 081125, Dereliction of duty; in that he willfully failed to keep his room clean on or about 081029; disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer x 2 on or about 081029; 081029; disrespectful in language and deportment toward SGT, a noncommissioned officer on or about 081029; failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 2 on or about 081015; 081016; dereliction of duty x 2; in that he willfully failed to shave prior to reporting to duty on or about 081021; dereliction of duty; in that he willfully failed to have his Military Identification Card on him at all times, as it was his duty to do so, on or about 081021; forfeiture of $673.00 pay per month for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 090425; extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

Article 15, 090311, Disrespectful in language toward a SGT, a noncommissioned officer on or about 090224, dereliction of duty, in that he failed to secure his ACH canteen, and wall locker as it was his duty to do so on or about 090225; forfeiture of $366.00 pay per month for one month, and extra duty for 14 days (FG)

Article 15, 080815, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 2 on or about 080813 and 080807; it appears on the DA Form 2627 that no punishment was imposed. (Summarized) 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 071018    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  25 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 6 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 6 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F10 Petroleum Supply Spec   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 20 March 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he disrespected a noncommissioned officer and was derelict in his duties on 090311; and failed to report to his appointed place of duty on 081125, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       He was advised of his rights.  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 service 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 22 April 2009, the separation authority approved the discharge action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, 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, but a general discharge 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, 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 his 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 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 he was involved in a fight and would like an upgrade of his discharge for reenlistment purposes.  Even though the applicant stated that he was involved in a fight while in the military, 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 his 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.  Further, if the applicant desires 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.   
       
       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: 21 July 2010         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted seven (7) copies of sworn statements, which was made by various individuals, while he was on active duty in support of his records review. 

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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change










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 AR20090016171
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages