Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/08/01	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues:  The applicant contends that he was released from the military, because his son burnt his hand, and after having surgery, he lossened the bandages.  The doctor accused him of removing the bandages.  After this issue, he started fighting with his wife, and she returned to Germany where she was from and took his son with her.  

He contends all the control numbers he used to call his wife in Germany were issued to him, but he was accused of misusing the control numbers.  After being released from the military, he contacted Senator Holling's office and they contacted his ex-wife's family and convinced her to return to the states.  As soon as she returned, they divorced and he was granted full custody of his son and his wife's visa was revoked and she was forced to return to Germany.  He has since raised his son himself.

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: 990808
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 991001   Chapter: 14-12c(1)       AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKD   Unit/Location: A Co, TFV (Prov), Fort Jackson, SC 

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:  19
Current ENL Date: 980330    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06 Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04  Yrs, 00 Mos, 10 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA/950922-980329/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport Op   GT: NIF   EDU: NIF   Overseas: Bosnia   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NM, AGCM, NDSM, AFEM, ASR, OSR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 8 August 1999, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct, commission of a serious offense for an aggravated assault inflicting greivous bodily harm upon his son (990623); committing an assualt and battery on his spouse (990614); and stealing government telephone services (990524, 990706, 990711, and 990817); with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 9 September 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 20 September 1999, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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 and documents 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 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.  
       
       The anlyst noted the applicant's contentions regarding his family issues, as well as his denial that he misused government telephone services; however, the available evidence in his official record sufficiently refutes his contentions, and he has not provided any new evidence to support a change in his dishcarge.  Furthermore, 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.
       
       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(1)” and block 26, separation code as “JKD.”  In view of these errors, the analyst recommends an  administrative change to block 25, separation authority to “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c” and block 26, separation code to “JKQ,” as approved by the separation authority.  
       
       Therefore, other than the administrative change noted above, 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: 22 February 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and 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 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(1),” and block 26, separation code as “JKD.”  In view of these errors, the Board voted to administratively change block 25, separation authority to “AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c,” and block 26, separation code to “JKQ.”  Except for the foregoing modifications, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: Administratively change Block 25 to AR 635-200, Para 14-12c and Block 26 to JKQ
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder
?????



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 AR20110016083
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages