Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/01/06	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that an upgrade should be granted because of his years of good service he had in the Army.  He received several awards and feels that his one mistake led to his discharge but his good service outweights his bad service.

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: 110906
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 120109   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense)	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: 591st EN Sapper Co, Fort Campbell, KY 

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:  21
Current ENL Date: 100708    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06 Mos, 02 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 04 Mos, 17 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 070823-100707/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 25U10/Signal Spt Sys Spc   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SWA   Combat: Iraq (090502-100422)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AGCM, NDSM, ICM-CS, GWOTSM, 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 6 September 2011, 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 being involved in a uniform citation (110506) for speeding 14 miles over the speed limit, disorderly conduct in the second degree, trafficking less than 8 ozs. of marijuana, and for resisting arrest with  an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was advised of his rights.    
       
       On 21 November 2011, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative separation board, 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 senior intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of the separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 3 January 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of under other than 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 repeated incidents of 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 applicant contends that he was an outstanding Soldier, that his good service outweighs his bad service and that he was not given a chance for his one-time mistake.  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 serious incidents of misconduct or by the multiple negative counseling statements.
       
       Furthermore, 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 did indeed adversely affect 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 a general, under honorable conditions or a fully honorable discharge.   Moreover, 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: 27 August 2012         Location: Chicago, IL

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: Applicant's mother 

Exhibits Submitted: Letter of recommendation, recommendations for awards, two ARCOM certdficates, oath of reenlistment, and other certificates and awards.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing the applicant’s testimony, and notwithstanding the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s overall length and quality of his service including his combat service.  The Board noted that he served over four years without incident, received two ARCOMs and as a result the Board found the characterization of his service is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  This action entails restoration of grade to E-4/SPC.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 4    No change 1
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: E-4/SPC.

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 AR20120009086
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages