Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/04/09	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "I’m requesting an upgrade to my discharge as at the time of my discharge it was based on a one time incident.  I was never charged with any crime and my discharge was based strictly on a then military policy."

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: 020228
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020311   Chapter: 14-12c     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct 	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: C Battery, 2nd Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery, 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, TX  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 011226, conspired with SGT JD, to commit an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to wit: attempted housebreaking, and in order to effect the object of the conspiracy, SGT JD and the applicant, did drive to a Coin Operated Car Wash, the applicant possessed a hacksaw blade, crowbar, and gloves, SGT JD possessed a hacksaw blade, the applicant’s car contained an additional hacksaw blade, gloves, and the car the applicant used to get to the Coin Operated Car Wash contained an additional hacksaw blade, gloves, and a sledge hammer (011024); attempted to commit the offense of housebreaking in that the Police Department observed the applicant at a Coin Operated Car Wash, and when the Police Department entered the Coin Operated Car Wash, the applicant fled and when the applicant was ordered to stop running by the Police Department the applicant was observed by the Police Department discarding gloves, a hacksaw blade, and a crowbar, instruments used to facilitate the applicant’s breaking into the cash changing machine at the Coin Operated Car Wash (011024); reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $500 pay per month for one month; 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:  21
Current ENL Date: 000103    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2  Yrs, 2 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Total Service:  		2  Yrs, 2 Mos, 9 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 52D10 Power Generator Equipment Repairer   GT: 90   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

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


VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 28 February 2002, 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 receiving a Letter of Reprimand for breaking into and entering an off post establisment and receiving a Field Article 15 for the same offense, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 1 March 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 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 6 March 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains military police report number 01931-2001-MPC014 dated, 27 October 2001.
       
       The record contains a civilian Police Department Supplement Report dated, 24 October 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 carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review the issues and documents he submitted, the analyst determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infraction of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offense.  
       
       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 his 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 that even though a single incident, the discrediting entry constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army.  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.  The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's single incident of misconduct adversely affected the quality of his service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting an honorable discharge. 
       
       The applicant contends that he was never charged with a crime; however, the record indicates the crime he committed was off post while he was out of uniform and off duty.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent part, stipulates that a Soldier may be separated when initially convicted by civil authorities, or when action is taken that is tantamount to a finding of guilty, if a punitive discharge authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts Martial or the sentence by civil authorities includes confinement for 6 months or more, without regard to suspension or probation. 
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
       
       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: 14 September 2012         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 and a 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.
























 

        
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: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
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 AR20120007204
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages