Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/02/03	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he has tried his best to make his way in the civilian world and has run into hardships along the way due to his discharge from the service.  He is aware that he is responsible for his actions and his actions at the time were immature of him.  He is asking for help from the Review Board because he didn't receive any from  his unit or chain of command while on active duty.  He experienced the death of a new born child while on leave and while he was on leave he did engage in the use of some pot to subdue the mental pain of his deceased child.  

Once he returned back to duty, he informed his section leader that he had done something wrong and needed some help.  His request for help was not issued to him, and instead he was stripped of all his rank, money was taken from him and this too was added to the pain with the death of his child.  All of his counseling statements before this incident were in the best conditions and he was an outstanding G.I. and deserved to have been helped.  

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: 020123
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020201   Chapter: 14-12c (2)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKK   Unit/Location: E Battery, 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery, 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, TX 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 011217, failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 5 (011019), (011003), (011002), (011001), (010928), and wrongfully used marijuana between (011009-011107), reduction to Private (E-1), forfeiture of $521.00 pay per month for 2 months, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 990818    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 14 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2 Yrs, 5 Mos, 14 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52D10 Power Generator equip repairer   GT: 83   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

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 15 January 2002, 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 has been counseled on numerous occasions about his pattern of misconduct, he has received punishment under Article 15, UCMJ for his misconduct, and his acts of misconduct range from testing positive for the wrongful use of marijuana; possession of an unregistered firearm, and failing to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on numerous occasions and that he was not keeping with the high standards that it takes to be a Soldier in the U.S. Army. 
       
       The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  On 23 January 2002, 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  On 24 January 2002, 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 (GOMOR) for possessing an unlicensed firearm, dated 1 November 2001.

       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  that he has tried his best to make his way in the civilian world and has run into hardships along the way due to his discharge from the service.   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 Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 
       
       Further, the analyst noted 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 contends that he is asking for help from the Review Board because he didn't receive any from his unit or chain of command while on active duty.  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.  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 further contends that he experienced the death of a new born child while on leave and while he was on leave, he did engage in the use of some pot to subdue the mental pain of his deceased child.  The applicant claims the death of his child resulted in his discharge.  While the applicant may believe his unfortunate situation at home was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from the situation through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers.  Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct.  
       
       Furthermore, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2),” block 26 as separation code “JKK,” block 27, re-entry code as “4,” and block 28, narrative reason for separation as “Misconduct”  In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends to the Board that an administrative change be made to block 25, to read separation authority:  “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b,” block 26, separation code to read "JKA," block 27, reentry code to read “3,” and block 28, reason for separation to read “Pattern of Misconduct”  as it was approved by the separation authority.   
       
       Except for the foregoing modifications, as stated above, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 2 September 2011         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 21 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. 

Further, notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2)”, block 26 separation code as “JKK”, block 27, reentry code as “4”, and block 28, narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct."  In view of these errors, the Board voted to administratively change block 25, separation authority to “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b”, block 26, separation code to “JKA”, block 27, reentry code to “3, and block 28, narrative reason for separation to "Pattern of Misconduct" as approved by the separation authority.   
        
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: "Pattern of Misconduct" under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b with a corresponding SPD code of "JKA."
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 AR20110002559
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages