Applicant Name:  

Application Receipt Date: 2012/04/12	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge is inequitable because it was based on one incident in a seven-year service.  He really just got mixed up with the wrong crowd and he has learned his lesson.  He was a hard working Soldier and was on his way to promotion.  He really would like a second chance.

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: 090327
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 090416   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 267th Quartermaster Company, 240th Quartermaster Battalion, 49th Group, Fort Lee, VA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 081216, failed to go to appointed place of duty at the prescribed time x 2 (080905); (080904), reduced to E-3; forfeiture of $417; 14-day extra duty, (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  21
Current ENL Date: 060601    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  02 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 10 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Total Service:  		06 Yrs, 03 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA (021119-060531) / HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92F (Petroleum Supply Spec)   GT: 93   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Korea; SWA   Combat: Iraq (041230-051230)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM; ICM-CS; GWOTSM; KDSM; NPDR; ASR; OSR-2

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 16 March 2009, 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—for larceny of a fellow Soldier's bank card and used it to purchase approximately $720.86 worth of merchandise (080828); failed to report to his appointed place of duty x 2 (080904), (080905); and disrespectful in language towards an NCO (080910), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 25 March 2009, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an Administrative Separation Board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than general, under honorable conditions 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.  
       
       Subsequently, the separation authority would have approved the conditional waiver request, waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions; however, there is no record of the approval.
       
       There is a civilian police report, dated 2 September 2008.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 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 being absent 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 analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review.  However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge as shown by the repeated incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements, and the documented actions under Article 15 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.
       
       Furthermore, the analyst noted that even though a single incident of serious misconduct, 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 serious misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  This single incident of serious misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.
       
       The analyst also noted the applicant's issue about his desire for a second chance to rejoin the Service.  However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry (RE) codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  The applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3.  The analyst found no bases upon which to recommend a change to the applicant’s reentry code.  An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist.  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 
       
       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: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 10 April 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review; DA Form 4856-R-E (Plan of Action Assessment), dated 5 & 12 October 2007; DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Report), dated 12 October 2007; Certificate of Achievement in Safety, dated June 2003-2004; Character Reference Letter, dated 24 March 2009; Certificates of Achievement x 2, dated 2 November 2008 and 29 January 2008; Course Completion Certificates x 4, dated 30 November 2007, 12 October 2007, May 2007, and August 2006. 

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:




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 AR20120007599
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 3 of 3 pages