Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/07/14	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his ability to serve was impaired by marital and family problems, as well as his youth and immaturity. The actions that resulted in his discharge reflected those issues. Now that he has fixed those issues, he honorably request an upgrade to avoid further hindrance from specific opportunities. 

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: 050801
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050826   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct-commission of a Serious Offense	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 249th Quartermaster Company, 7th Transportation Battalion, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: AWOL x 2 from (050823-050825) for 3 days, returned to his unit, and AWOL from (050518-050724) for 68 days, surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Bragg, NC. Total time lost was 71 days.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050810, AWOL from (050518-050725), extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

041214, disrespectful in language toward SGT, a noncommissioned officer (041103), failed to go to his appointed place of duty on (041201), reduction to Private (E-2), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (040114) (CG)

The suspension of the punishment of reduction to Private (E-2) imposed on (041214) was vacated, effective (050124), based on the applicant's offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty (041116).

050410, disrespectful in deportment toward SGT, a noncommissioned officer on (050208), disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer ON (050209), wrongfully received a 12 guage shotgun, of a value of less than $500.00, the property of an unknown person, which property he knew had been stolen (041225) (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  17
Current ENL Date: 030820    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 9 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 9 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A10 Automated Logistical Spec   GT: 91   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicnat.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 1 August 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-commission of a serious offense; in that he was AWOL from (050518-050725), counseled on several occasions for being disrespectful to those in his chain of command, and failing to obey orders, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 1 August 2005, 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 11 August 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 in reference to the applicant's offense of possessing stolen property dated 26 December 2004, and a Bar to Reenlistment, which was approved on 7 January 2005. 

       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 his ability to serve was impaired by his marital and family problems.  Specifically, he claims his marital and family problems at home resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his marital and family problems at home and was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from problems through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.
       
       The applicant further contends that his youth and immaturity impaired his ability to serve.  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. 
       
       Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  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..
       
       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: 30 March 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 undated. 

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 AR20100019041
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages