Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/10/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she is requesting an upgrade of her discharge to honorable in order to improve her career.  She has been turned down for a few law enforcement jobs since her discharge.  She is a full time student and needs the benefits of the GI Bill.

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: 060629
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 060805   Chapter: 14-12b    AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: B Det, 39th Finance Bn, Darmstadt, Germany 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060112, failed to report x 3 (between 050818-051205), disrespectful to an NCO x 2 (050818, 051205), disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO (050820), duty dereliction x 4 (between 050512-051206), reduction to E-3 (suspended), forfeiture of $423, and 30 days of extra duty (CG)

060117, the suspended sentence of reduction to E-3 imposed on 12 January 2006 was vacated for the new offense of disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (060112)

041124, disrespectful in deportment to an NCO x 2 (041012, 041001), disobeyed a lawful order from an NCO (041001), 7 days of extra duty and restriction (Summarized)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 030306    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 05 Mos, 00 Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 05 Mos, 00 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 44C10/Finance Mgt Tech   GT: 101   EDU: GED   Overseas: Kosovo, Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM-2, NDSM, GWOTSM, KCM, ASR, OSR, NM

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 26 June 2006, 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 failing to report on 13 occasions (between 040122-060328), disobeying lawful orders from NCOs on seven occasions (between 030908-060310), being disrespectful to an NCO two times (050819, 051207), disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer (040709), and for dereliction of her duties on four occasions (between 040821-051207), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 27 June 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on her 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       The separation authority’s memorandum approving the discharge and characterization of service are not contained in the record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 indicates she was discharged on 5 August 2006, with a general, under honorable conditions characterization of service.  

       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 issues and document 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her 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 issues about having better job opportunities and the benefits of the GI Bill.  However, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  Additionally, 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.
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.
       
       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: 4 April 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: None

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						
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: NA
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 AR20110020968
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages