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 this upgrade so that he can go back to school and study to become a pharmacy technichian and also become a better man by getting back into the National Guard.  He admits that what he did in the past was inexcusable and regret every bad decision he has made. Since he has been out of the military, he has become a more mature and wiser man, who is doing everything he can to get his life back in order. He understands that this process to upgrade his discharge will not be a walk in the park, but he trully believes that if it is upgraded, his life will start falling in place. 

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: 090314
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090430   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Forward Operating Base, Warhorse, Iraq, APO AE 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070522, dereliction of duty, in that he failed to stay awake while conducting a training mission on or about (070424), failed to go to his appointed place of duty on or about (070419), failed to go to his appointed place of duty on or about (070417), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $303.00 pay for one month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG)

Article 15, 070830, failed to go to his appointed place of duty on or about (070405), failed to go to his appointed place of duty on or about (070530), and disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer on or about (070530), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $650.00 pay per month for two months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

Article 15, 080604, dereliction of duty, in that he negligently failed to notify his chain of command of his duty status, as it was his duty to do so x 2 on or about (080418) and on or about (080420), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $314.00 pay for one month, 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:  18
Current ENL Date: 051227    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 4 Days ?????
Total Service:  		3 Yrs, 5 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 051122-051227/NA
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 R4 M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 82   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (080920-090315)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICMDLw/CS, 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 14 March 2009, 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 had numerous offenses for failing to report, disobeying orders, and dereliction of duty; despite multiple Article 15s and countless opportunities to correct his deficiencies, he continued to commit misconduct, which behavior was disruptive and will no longer be tolerated.  The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights. 
       
       On 24 March 2009, 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 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 6 April 2009, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that 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, 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 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 is requesting this upgrade so that he can go back to school and study to become a pharmacy technichian and also become a better man by getting back into the National Guard.  Eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 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. 
       
       Further, 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 continue to 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.  
       
       The applicant further contends that he has become a more mature and wiser man, who is doing everything he can to get his life back in order.  The analyst noted the applicant’s youth at the time of enlistment and an apparent lack of maturity.  However, 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 19 May 2010, document welcoming the applicant to the Job Corps Career Training Program and what he needs for his interview, and a copy of his DD Form 214, for the period of service ending 30 April 2009. 

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 AR20100016336
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages