Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/04/16	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was charged with shoving Ms. KA; but there were no witnesses because the incident never happened.  Ms. KA made the statement to the MP’s because she was angry that she and the applicant were getting divorced; she later recanted her story.   A statement was submitted by PFC C that corroborated that the applicant was in the field on guard duty; and did not assault Ms. KA.  His commander tried to have him discharged for patterns of misconduct; however, he was unable to do so because the applicant had just reenlisted for six years.  Consequently, his commander went back six months to a supposed incident that supposedly occurred at a club where he shoved a girl.  The incident was untrue as he was in the field at the time.  His commander then tried to have him court-martialed; however, the prosecutor concluded there was no evidence.  His commander then petitioned the colonel for an Article 15 against the applicant.  He received no punishment; however, he was discharged seventy-two hours later.  He feels as though he was wrongfully picked out by the commander and he is asking to be honorably discharged or reinstated in the Army full time.  He has recently received his Bachelors degree in Criminal Justice and is working on his Master in Legal Studies; additionally, he is currently in the VA National Guard and has served overseas in Iraq.  At the time of his discharge racism still existed and he truly believes he was unjustly discharged because of his skin color.  He was a good Soldier; although, he made his share of mistakes.  There were soldiers in his unit that received Article 15’s for similar situation, but they were looked over.  In his opinion, the military as a whole is not like the unit he experienced.  It is his view that his commander and that particular unit were incapable of finding the truth as to what really happened and that is what lead to his discharge from the Army.  He loves his country and hopes the Army will see justice for the better good.  Most Soldiers and people will just admit to a charge; however, he did not do anything wrong and he will not say that he did something that he did not do.

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: 980604
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 980821   Chapter: 14-12c     AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 2d Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, California  

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:  24
Current ENL Date: 980116    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0  Yrs, 7 Mos, 5   Days ?????
Total Service:  		4  Yrs, 3 Mos, 16 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 940506 - 980115/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 88M10 Motor Transport   GT: 86   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR


V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: Currently serving in the Army National Guard; highest rank E-4; service in Kuwait/Iraq (080507 - 090221); awards ARCOM, AGCM, NDSM w/BS, ICM w/CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 4 June 1998, 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 committing an assault upon Mrs. KA, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       The applicant's election of rights is not contained in the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.  On 23 June 1998, the applicant 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 30 July 1998, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts 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 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 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 an 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 applicant contends other Soldiers that received Article 15’s were retained; however, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case.  Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions of racism and being picked out by his chain of command; however, 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.  
       
       The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted accomplishments in the Army National Guard.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's issue about his desire 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: 19 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 AR20120007921
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages