Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/06/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he is requesting an upgrade of his discharge because he did something stupid and regret what he has done. He wish that he could have had the opportunity to stay in the service. Upon his discharge he has been working with different contractors in Kuwait, Germany, and Iraq with out any issues and he is still supporting the Army till this day. He has received numerous awards from working in Iraq and other places for his work.

He would just like for it to be changed based on his continuing support with the service as a contractor. He has not gotten into any trouble since his discharge and he has not been in any trouble before he signed up. He was young and was just not thinking right at the time. Now he is older and he looks at things different. This is the only thing that’s hanging over his head and he would just like to make it right. 

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: 000503
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 000623   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Company A, 1st Battalion, 35th Armor, 1st Armored Division, Germany, APO AE 

Time Lost: None

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

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 991006, Summary Court-Martial for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on (990922), and disobeying a superior commissioned officer on (990921), made a false official statement to a SFC on (990922), and wrongful appropriation of money x 6 the property of six SPCs on (990824), (990825), (990826), (990826), (990903), (990907). He was sentenced to confinement for 27 days, reduction to Private (E-1), and forfeiture of $200.00. 

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 970723    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 1 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 1 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 M1 Abrams Armor Crewman   GT: 93   EDU: 14 Years (Comm College)   Overseas: Germany (971125-000623), Bosnia (980330-980922)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AFEM, AFSM, NATOMDL, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states in his issue that he has been working with different contractors in Kuwait, Germany, and Iraq with out any issues and he is still supporting the Army till this day. He has received numerous awards from working in Iraq and other places for his work.  

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 3 May 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he was found guilty by a Summary Court-Martial on (991006) for failing to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeying a commissioned officer, making a false official statement, wrongful appropriation, and has been counseled for indebtedness, disobeying and disrespecting noncommissioned officers and failing to obey regulations and orders, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
       
       He was advised of his rights.  On 31 May 2000, 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, even though the applicant was not entitled to one 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. 
       
       The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 7 June 2000, 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 CID Report of Investigation in reference to the applicant's offense of larceny of private property dated 14 October 1999, and a Military Police Report in reference to the appplicant's offense of fleeing the scene of a traffice accident dated 8 Octobe 1999. 

       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 just like for his discharge to be changed based on his continuing support with the service as a contractor.  He has not gotten into any trouble since his discharge and he has not been in any trouble before he signed up.  The analyst considered the applicant’s quality of 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.  
       
The applicant further contends that he was young and was just not thinking right at the time.  The analyst found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
       
       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: 23 February 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 16 May 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 AR20100016330
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages