Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2009/12/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states:  "Improper conduct on behalf of members of the Marrion PIt., specifically LT K. I was choked out after he grabbed me form behind as I attempted to get his hand off of me. I was following the orders of MAJ B, 96th Med. Group Eglin AFB, Florida. When this action occurred I was isolated and assaulted by LT K. He grabbed me in a Rear Naked Choke and took me to the ground as I was trying to walk away. I requested a statement stating such from my squad leader, SGT D.  He stated that he would have to "cover his own a--" because he was promised a W.O. Canidate spot. He also stated that they started a paper trail to get me out of the army. Specifically, giving me an article 15 for losing an ID card when it was at my house then asking me to produce the other one to procure further imposition of punitive ramifications. In one case of an Article 15, my car had broken down on 9 mile road where there is no cell phone signal. My CO, CPT R drove by and did not stop. I received an Article 15 for Failure to Report at which CPT R stated "I can't wait until you are out of my platoon and out of the army." I admit at that point of the imposition of the first two Art. 15's I gave up. They had already Chaptered 17 people out of that unit since I had arrived by petty paper trails. Granted some were deserved without a doubt, other's were like me. Upon my discharge I was not aloud to be medically cleared, go to dental, or arrange for the shipment of my household goods for which I was rightly allowed. The paper trail began when I went to mental health for sleep issues after being denied by my PIt. Sgt. I requested to go and spoke to our PA about it in January of 2008. I was told I would not be alloted time for that and I did not go until I was escorting a soldier there and was chastised for it and warned of a paper trail by SGT D.     In less than a year my career was over."

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: 080723
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090120   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: HHC, 6th Ranger Tng Bn, Eglin AFB, FL 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 080623, disobeying the lawful order from an NCO on four occasions (080702), disrespectful in language toward an NCO (080702), disrespectful toward a commissioned officer (080702), assaulted a commissioned officer (080702), disobeyed the lawful order of a commissioned officer (080702), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $670 for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG)

080206, disobeying the lawful order from an NCO (080115), without authority left his place of duty (080115), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $429 (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 050713    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  16 weeks
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 06Mos, 08Days The applicant's ERB and LES show his ETS as 14 March 2010
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 06Mos, 08Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B1P/Infantryman   GT: 111   EDU: GED   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (060109-060925)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM w/CS, ASR, OSR, CIB 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 23 July 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, for striking a commissioned officer, disobeying the law order from a commissioned officer, disrespecting a commissioned officer, for numerous acts of disobeying lawful orders from NCOs and being disrespectful toward NCOs, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       On 8 August 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived an administrative separation board, 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 senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed separation action and recommended separation from the Army with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 13 January 2009, the separation authority determined that the applicant’s medical condition was not the direct cause of his misconduct, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed 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 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 which 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 analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct and by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       The applicant contends that he was assaulted by a commissioned officer; however, he provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the presumption of regularity should not be applied in this case.  The applicant by his own statement, contained in the record, accepted the Article 15 which included the offenses of assaulting a commissioned officer, disrespecting and disobeying lawful orders from NCOs and officers.  The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
       
       There is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support his contention that he was unjustly discharged.  In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15, and negative counseling statements justify serious offenses for which he could have been court martialed.  The applicant’s statement alone does not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case. 
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 15 September 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Personal MEB statement, memorandum of information by MAJ C, election of rights form, witness statement.

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 1    No change 4
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 AR20100000092
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages