Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/01/27	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he has been going to FTCC College for one semester and would like the GI Bill to help him pay for his schooling.  He is going to be a teacher and as of now, he will be starting his second semester January 11, 2011.  In addition, he feels that the discharge was inequitable do to the incident that happened around February 2001.  

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: 010403
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 010425   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX 

Time Lost: AWOL x 1 from (001221-010117) for 28 days.  The applicant returned to his unit.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 991026, disobeyed a lawful order from SSG, a  noncommissioned officer (991004), restriction and extra duty for 14 days, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (990426), (Summarized)

990811, failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 2 (990726), (990727), disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer (990727), restriction and extra duty for 14 days, (Summarized)

The suspension of the punishment of restriction for 14 days imposed on (991105) was vacated, effective (991130) based on the applicant's offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty (991104).

991217, disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer (991107), reduction to Private (E-1), suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (000317), restriction and extra duty for 14 days (CG)

000106, with intent to deceive, made an official statement to a SGT, which was false (991218), failed to go to his appointed place of duty (991218), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $223.00 pay, restriction and extra duty for 14 days (CG)

010206, AWOL, from (001221-010118), missed the movement of Platoon Training, Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment; with which he was required in the course of duty to move x 2 (010103) and (010116), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $521.00 pay per month for 2 months, restriction and extra duty for 45 days and a oral reprimand (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: 981023    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 5 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 19K10 M1 Armor Crewman   GT: 84   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states in his issue that he has attended FTCC College for one semester so far.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 March 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct; in that he received a Field Grade Article 15 for AWOL more than twenty-five days and missing movement; received two Company Grade Article 15s for lying, disobeying lawful orders, and failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  He also received a Summarized Article 15 for failing to go to his appointed place of duty on two separate occasions. 
       
       The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 3 April 2001, 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.  On 4 April 2001, the intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 5 April 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that 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, 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 has been going to FTCC College for one semester and would like to use the the GI Bill to help him pay for his schooling.  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.
       
       The applicant further contends that his discharge was inequitable because of the incident that happened around February 2001.  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.  Additionally, the applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty reflected by a single incident provides the basis for a characterization. 
       
       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: 31 August 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 31 December 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 AR20110002386
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 2 of 3 pages