Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100000282
Original file (AR20100000282.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/12/30	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

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: 051115
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051205   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHC 4th BSTB, 506th RCT, Ft Campbell, KY 

Time Lost: None

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

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 020814    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 03Mos, 22Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 03Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (030615-040214)
Decorations/Awards: ACGM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM, ICM, GWOTSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Orlando, FL
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  17 November 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, for pattern of misconduct, for writing 13 worthless checks to various businesses in Clarksville, TN totaling approximately $561 (040719-040808), being arrested for the offenses (051016) and spent five days in the county jail; disobeyed an order from an NCO (050919); while on duty caught accessing and downloading pornographic material on the Staff Duty computer (050819); and found to have an unauthorized guest in the barracks room a civilian female of 17 years old (050815) 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 submitted 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 23 November 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.
       The record contains a Military Police Report dated 16 October 2005 for uttering worthless checks and being incarcerated in a civilian facility.

       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 the applicant’s issue and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  
       Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  
       Additionally, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  
       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: 18 February 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: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20100000282
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080010040

    Original file (AR20080010040.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 August 2006, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070012367

    Original file (AR20070012367.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008799

    Original file (AR20080008799.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 November 1996, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct for failure to adapt motivationally which he was counselled several times for, with an uncharacterized discharge. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080018368

    Original file (AR20080018368.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 960110 Discharge Received: Date: 960312 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HHC, 327th Sig Bn, Ft Bragg, NC Time Lost: No dates are annotated on the DD Form 214. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090002414

    Original file (AR20090002414.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? On 17 August 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. On 20 March 2008, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016556

    Original file (AR20060016556.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 15 February 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct for operating a vehicle with a suspended license (051005) and for failure to report three times (051003, 051004, 051005) with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003086

    Original file (AR20090003086.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The analyst noted that the unit commander used “Board Procedures” when notifying the applicant that...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080015117

    Original file (AR20080015117.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 20 January 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005398

    Original file (AR20090005398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? The analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and his service did not warrant an honorable discharge. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090015690

    Original file (AR20090015690.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/09/08 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states: "According to my commander and first sargeant, when i was enlisted the correct action for failing a urinalysis was immediate discharge.