Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/09/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he completed over 2 years of service with a deployment SFOR, and that his wife was unfaithful while he was deployed and left to the states with his son without returning. He lost his BAQ housing. At the time, he was only 24 and his world was destroyed. Prior to this crisis he was awarded an Army Commendation Medal as a PFC and was the only non NCO within the whole unit to receive an ARCOM for SFOR Bosnia Herzegovinia. He felt that he needed intervention, counseling rehabilitation and not separation.  He feels that he is eligible for his Montgomery GI Bill, which he paid in full, and will allow him the opportunity to heal. He thinks the Army would rather see a Soldier move on positively and just because he was not Army material, this should not doom him, because he is still an american. 

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: 980424
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980501   Chapter: 14-12c       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: Charlie Battery, 1st Battalion, 6th Field Artillery, Bamberg, Germany, APO AE 09139 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980421, wrongfully used methamphetamine between (980205-980304), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $476.00 pay per month for two months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days (FG)

970108, operated a passenger car while drunk on or about (961221), drunk and disorderly on or about (961221), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $450.00 pay per month for two months, restriction for 45 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (970408), and extra duty for 45 days (FG)

960918, allowed an unauthorized person to operate a POV on or about (960918), (Summarized)



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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 960221    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 11 Days The net active service this  period on the DD Form 214 block 12c is incorrect; should be as annotated above.
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 2 Mos, 11 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany (960806-980501)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, NATOM, ASR, OSR, AFSMDL, 

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 24 April 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he was in physical control of a vehicle while drunk (961221), and wrongfully used methamphetamines between (980205-980304), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights. 
       
       On 24 April 1998, the applicant waived 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 27 April 1998, 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 applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for operating a motor vehicle while drunk dated 21 January 1997, (Administrative) 

       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 completed over 2 years of service with a deployment, and that his wife was unfaithful while he was deployed and left to the states with his son without returning. He lost his BAQ housing and at the time he was only 24, and his world was destroyed.  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 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. 
       
       
       The applicant further contends that he felt he needed intervention, counseling, rehabilitation and not separation.  He further feels that he is eligible for his Montgomery GI Bill, which he paid in full, and will allow him the opportunity to heal.  The evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts.  As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service.
       
       Additionally, 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: 25 May 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 15 September 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 AR20100023780
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 4 pages