Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/08/26	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because he diligently served his country to the best of his ability.  He was a good Soldier up until the time he became part of the rear detachment.  He had deployed to Iraq and had done well.  He earned an Army Achievement Medal but once he was reassigned under SSG B he received an Article 15.  He believes the punishment he received was cruel.  He is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable.

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: 051014
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 051123   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: HHD, 6th Transp Bn, Fort Eustis, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050708, failed to report to his designated place of duty on six occasions (between 040712 and 050412), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 031206    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  with a 3-month extension
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 11Mos, 17Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 01Mos, 19Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 001005-031205/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42L10/Admin Spc   GT: 95   EDU: GED   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Kuwait (030112-030323), Iraq (030323-030704)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, AGCM, ICM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Naranja, FL
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 12 July 2004, 13 July 2004, 14 July 2004, 10 November 2004, 14 December 2004, 8 April 2005, 12 April 2005, 26 April 2005, 9 May 2005, he  failed to go to his appointed place of duty; on 26 August 2005, he unlawfully allowed a person without a valid driver’s license to operate his privately owned vehicle; on 26 August 2005, he was involved in an altercation with another individual that resulted in the damage to government property; on 1 September 2005, he failed to obey an order from a noncommissioned officer; on 2 September 2005, he refused to pay his spouse her entitled portion of BAH, and violated a lawful order from a commissioned officer to make the monthly allotments to his spouse; between 31 October 2004 and 29 March 2005, he was derelict in the performance of his duties, by not following through with his Medical Board process during this time period and missing six scheduled appointments.  The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 
       
       On 13 October 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf which is not contained in the record.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 31 October 2005, the separation authority indicated that the unit commander’s notification and recommendation alleged several reasons for separation; including allegations that, on 1 September 2005, the applicant refused to pay a portion of his BAH to his spouse and that on 2 September 2005 he violated an order from a commissioned officer to make monthly allotments to his spouse. The separation authority found that, pursuant to the separation agreement between the applicant and his wife, dated 1 June 2005, he had no obligation of spousal support after 1 June 2005.  Accordingly, the applicant’s non-payment of support and failure to make an allotment to his spouse could not serve as a basis for separation. However, the remaining reasons for separation supported the applicant’s separation with a general discharge.
       
       On 31 October 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge 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, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The applicant contends that he was unfairly discharged; however, 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 repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  The applicant’s service was marred by one field grade Article 15, for multiple violations of the UCMJ and numerous negative counseling statements which are contained in his record.
       
       Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
       
       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.  
       
       Moreover, the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge
       
       Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 13 May 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: Four character reference letters, a self-authored statement, AAM award, certificate of achievement, oath of enlistment, honorable discharge certificate, DD Form 214.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony, 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA














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 AR20100022335
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages