Applicant Name:   

Application Receipt Date: 2009/12/08	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: 041005
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 041027   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHT, 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, Camp Garry Owen, APO AP 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031209, at or near Camp Garry Owen, Korea, on or about 20 July 2003, did steal a portable CD player, of a value greater than $100.00, the property of another Soldier; reduction to Private (E-2), forfeiture of $301.00, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 6 June 2004, 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:  20
Current ENL Date: 020402    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19D10/Cavalry Scout   GT: 94   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he has enrolled in college in order to pursue a degree in criminal justice.










VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
             The evidence of record shows that on 31 August 2004, 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—for testing positive for THC on two occasions, and receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for larceny and housebreaking, 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 Army 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 15 October 2004, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

The evidence of record contains a CID Report of Investigation (ROI) dated 30 June 2004.
       

       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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.   There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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 found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.  Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  

           In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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: 26 February 2010         Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: Texas Veterans Commission

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: Character Letter

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his 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 AR20090021655
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages