Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/13	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: 080723, Upgraded to General, under honorable conditions

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documents 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: 080329
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080516   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 54th MP Rear Det, Ft Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080319, assault on SSG by pointing an unloaded weapon at him, derelict in the performance of her duty, willfully disobey a SSG; reduction to E1, forfeiture of $893. (SUMM)

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 050503 (should read 050509 per her enlistment contract)    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 00Mos, 14Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 00Mos, 14Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4 (CPL)		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 31B10 Military Police   GT: 108   EDU: 2 year College   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq x (060113-060418 & 070515-080430)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Spanaway, WA
Post Service Accomplishments: Fitness Director at a Fitness Center and a personal trainer.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 29 March 2008, 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 commission of a serious offense in that she pointed an unloaded weapon at her squad leader, was derelict in the performance of her duties and disobeyed a lawful order, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement on her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  
       On 10 February 2006, the separation authority approved the unconditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and not be transferred to the IRR. 
        On 23 July 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant's characterization of service to 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 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 all 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 applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the former Soldier’s 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 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 that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       Further, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)", and the separation code is "JKQ."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.     
       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: 25 February 2010         Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Yes

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Books of Accomplishments - 50 pages and an 8 page statement.




VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing her testimony 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: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090017852
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages