Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/05/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he would really like to rejoin the Army and if he can't rejoin the Army, he would like to get a better job so he can take care of himself and his family.  He has learned from his mistakes and he is trying his best to correct all of his bad doings from the past. He would also like his reentry eligibility (RE) code changed. I hope the Army can find it in their hearts to forgive him and give him another chance.

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: 061005
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061102   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 1st Armored Division, APO AE, Germany 

Time Lost: Military confinement from (061005-061102) for 28 days; as part of his punishment imposed from a Summary Court-Martial.

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

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061005, Summary Court-Martial for failing to go to his appointed place of duty x 6 on or about (060427), between (060517-060628) on divers occasions failed to go to his appointed place of duty, failed to go to his appinted place of duty between (060517-060629), (060727), (060706), disobeyed a commissioned officer x 2 on or about (060603), (060625), disobeyed a lawful order on (060518), was disrespectful x2 on (060529), (060727), made false official statements x 2 on (060426), (060605), and broke restriction x 2 on (060602), (060603). He was sentenced to reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $849.00 pay per month for one month, and to be confined for 30 days.   

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 050804    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 2 Mos, 1 Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 2 Mos, 1 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 63B10 Wheeled Vehicle Mech   GT: 95   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
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 11 Octoer 2006, 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 a pattern of misconduct; in that he was on 24 March 2006, counseled for failing to report to his appointed place of duty; on 30 March 2006, he was counseled for failing to report to his appointed place of duty; on 27 April 2006, he was counseled for failing to report to his appointed place of duty; on divers occasions on or between 17 May 2006 and 28 June 2006, he was counseled for failing to go to his appointed place of duty;  
       
       On 27 July 2006, he was counseled for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; on 6 July 2006, he was counseled for failing to go to his appointed place of duty; on 3 June 2006, he was counseled for disobeying an order from a CPT; on 25 June 2006, he was counseled for disobeying an order from a CPT;on 18 May 2006, he was counseled for disobeying an order from a ISG; on 29 May 2006, he was counseled for disobeying an order from a SOT; on 27 July 2006, he was counseled for disobeying an order from a SOT; on 26 April 2006, he was counseled for making a false official statement to a SSG; on 27 April 2006, he was counseled for making a false official statement to a SGT; on 5 June 2006, he was counseled for making a false official statement to a SGT, on 2 June 2006, he was counseled for breaking his restriction; and on June 2006, he was counseled for breaking his restriction.  The unit commander recommended separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 5 October 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board pursuant to the pre-trial agreement he entered in, 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 commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 18 October 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than 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 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 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. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he would like to rejoin the Army and if he can't, he would like to get a better job so that he can take care of himself and his family.  He has learned from his mistakes and he is trying his best to correct all of his bad doings from the past.  He would also like his reentry eligibility (RE) code changed.  
       At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  
       
       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: 4 February 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 15 April 2010.

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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change






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 AR20100015073
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages