Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/23	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 051011
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051026   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: 1st Replacement Company, Fort Riley, KS 

Time Lost: AWOL for 7 days (050715-050722), returned to unit. 

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050826, willfully and unlawfully alter a public record (DA Form 31, Request and Authority for Leave), (050629-050718), AWOL (050715-050722), and failure to report x 2 (050809) and (050814); forfeiture of $288 pay x 1 month, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days (CG).

The unit commander's recommendation memorandum shows that the applicant was reduced to E-1 on (050506); however, the reducing document is not part of the available record.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 021030    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  block 12a on the DD Form 214 date entered active duty this period is incorrect, should read (021030), see enlistment contract.
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 11Mos, 20Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 11Mos, 20Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42L10 Admin Spec   GT: 93   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (030501-040801)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Kansas City, MO
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 11 October 2005, 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-cpattern of misconduct for AWOL (050715-050720), altering his DA Form 31 by changing the end date, and failure to report x 2 (050809 and (050814), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions, 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.  On 20 October  2005, 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 document he submitted, 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue regarding his post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while on active duty and the independent document (Department of Veteran Affairs) submitted with the application indicating that the applicant was diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which was determined to be service connected and was granted a 50% disability rating.  However, the record does not support the applicant's issue that the he suffered from PTSD and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant that his discharge was the result of any medical condition while on active duty.  In view of the foregoing  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: 24 November 2009         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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090018606
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages