Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/06/29	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: 2008/08/06   

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states that he desires an upgrade in order to serve his country again.  He says he was discharged from the Army in 2005 at 20 years old with no direction about where he wanted to go in life.  Since then he says he has married and attends college and is working toward a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice.  He goes on to say that since the incident he has matured and grown in many ways and learned from his mistake.

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: 050321
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050506   Chapter: 14-12b      AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: A Co, Mobilization Readiness Bn, Ft Dix, NJ 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 041129    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 05Mos, 08Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 10Mos, 10Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR 030627-041128/NA
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10/Motor Transport Op   GT: 91   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: GWOTSM, AFRM w/M Device, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Marquette, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he attends a university where he is working toward a Bachelors Degree in Criminal Justice.











VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
             The evidence of record shows that on 21 March 2005, 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 misconduct—pattern of misconduct for making a prank call to a suicide hotline, being disrespectful to several NCOs, disobeying several NCOs, threatening NCOs, and being disrespectful to an officer, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights. 
 
             On 24 March 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and did not indicate whether he would seek consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  The applicant did not submit a statement on his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  

             On 21 April 2005, a memorandum shows that the applicant's recommendation to separate him from the Army was referred to an administrative separation board.  The analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process in that the applicant was accorded all the rights of an administrative separation board and that the separation authority approved the findings and recommendation of that administrative separation board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  

              Futhermore, the record contains a properly constituted DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature.  His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, Paragraph 12b for misconduct, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JKA (i.e., pattern of misconduct).
       

       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 the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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 notes the applicant's request to serve his country again; however, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine 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 if appropriate.  
       
       Futhermore, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted his accomplishments outlined with the application to include attending college for a degree in criminal justice.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
       
        Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
       
       The applicant submitted no documents in support of the personal appearance hearing.
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 20 June 2011         Location: Chicago, IL

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service, considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, and hearing the applicant's testimony, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh.  The Board found that the applicant's misconduct, which amounted to minor infractions, and his post service accomplishments to include attending college to attain a degree in criminnal justice, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.   
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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: ?????






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 AR20100018038
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages