Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2010/12/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "From the time I first entered service with the U.S. ARMY my actions and conduct were always above and beyond what was expected of me. I never received any kind of disciplinary actions whatsoever. My political beliefs were both exaggerated and used against me and led to an early dismissal. Both my XO and CO as well as the LT. Col. agreed that I should recieve an honorable discharge. I think anyone who worked along beside me would also agree that my actions were nothing less than what would be expected of any soldier and deserving of an Honorable Discharge. I feel I did nothing wrong to deserve anything less. I would appreciate having this looked into. Thank you for your time".

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: 021113
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 021211   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: C Co, 2/5th Cavalry Regiment, Ft Hood, TX 

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:  29
Current ENL Date: 011108    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	1 Yrs, 01Mos, 04Days ?????
Total Service:  		1 Yrs, 01Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10 Infantryman   GT: 125   EDU: GED   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Grand Prairie, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 13 November 2002, 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 a pattern of misconduct for refusing to decline his involvement with extremist organizations and having tattoos that are extremist in nature, with an honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 13 November 2002, the applicant waived consulting 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 an honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 3 December 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts 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 analyst determined that 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue that both the XO and CO recommended an honorable discharge; however, the approving authority is not bound by these recommendations.  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.  
       
       Further, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.
       
       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: 23 February 2011         Location: Dallas, TX

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel:  [ redacted ]

Witnesses/Observers:  [ redacted ] 

Exhibits Submitted: 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: No Change
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 AR20100030257
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages