Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/28	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states that he was under extreme psychological stress due to an immediate family member being murdered and was offered no counseling, which led to his depression and alcohol abuse problems. 

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: 960129
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960301   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Company C, 3rd Psychological Operations Battalion, (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: The unit commander's recommendation for separation indicates the applicant was AWOL for 42 days. However, there are no supporting documents in the OMPF to substantiate the lost time. Further, the DD Form 214, block 29 does not show any time lost during this period of service. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 951211; The charges which led to the Article 15 are not in the available record; however, the punishment imposed was: reduction to Private (E-1); forfeiture of $427.00 pay per month for one month, suspended until 960209 which was later vacated; and extra duty (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 940907    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  26 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 5 Mos, 25 Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 5 Mos, 25 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31C1P Single Channel Radio Oper   GT: 123   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, 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 29 January 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct a pattern of misconduct; in that he has been late for formations, failed to keep his supervisor informed of his whereabouts, drinking under age, drunk and disorderly, failed to obey NCO's orders, AWOL twice totaling 42 days and was given ample enough time and opportunities to improve his performance, which he failed to do, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant's election of rights document is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  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.  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, 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, and the issue 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 under extreme psychological stress during his service dates; however, the applicant had many legitimate avenues (i.e., chaplain, psychiatrist) through which to obtain assistance or relief to help resolve his psychological stressors without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. 
       
       The applicant also contends that he was not counseled on how to handle said incident.  The record shows that before initiating action to separate the applicant, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about the deficiencies, which could lead to separation.  The analyst noted the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier. 
       
       The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.
       
       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: 12 May 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 AR20090016793
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages