Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/10/22	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable.   He contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on a period of four unsatisfactory months after 45 months of   completely satisfactory and honorable service, in which he deployed to Iraq. 

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: 100719
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 100813   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Co, 3-21st IN Regt, Fort Wainwright, AK 

Time Lost: AWOL for 23 days (100511-100603), returned to unit.  However, this period is not annotated on the DD Form 214 block 29 dates of time lost during this period. 

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: 060427    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  17 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	04  Yrs, 03 Mos, 17 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04  Yrs, 04 Mos, 04 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	USAR-060410-060426/NA
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 111   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Alaska/Southwest Asia   Combat: Iraq (080921-090911)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-W/2 CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR-2

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Winder, GA 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 19 July 2010, 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 pattern of misconduct for absenting himself from his unit (AWOL) (100511-100603); and being counseled for failing to report on multiple occasions, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights. 
       
       On 21 July 2010, 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 Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
       On 21 July 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that 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 his 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 applicant contends that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on a period of four unsatisfactory months after 45 months of completely satisfactory and honorable service, in which he deployed to Iraq.  The analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  
       
       Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       Further, careful consideration  was given to his entire service record, to include his servcie in Iraq and the analyst found that this service was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.     
       
       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: 29 June 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (100923).






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: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None































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 AR20100026240
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 pages