Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/05/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states , in effect, that he requests an upgrade to his discharge.  He states that he did not commit a crime because he was never given a no contact order by the commander, it was a counseling statement from SGT S signed by the commander.

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: 110913
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 110929   Chapter: 14-12b       AR: 635-200
Reason: Pattern of Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKA   Unit/Location: Delta Battery, 3rd
Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery, 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Sill, Ok 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 110412, for being disrespectful in language to a noncommissioned officer (110402), reduction to E-3; forfeiture of $455 x 1 month, 14 days extra duty, 14 days restriction (CG).

110829, for disobeying a lawful order (110711), reduction to E-1; forfeiture of $733 x 2 months, 45 days of extra duty and 45 day of restriction (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: 091209    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 09 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  		05 Yrs, 04 Mos, 15 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 060606-091208/HD
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 14E10/Patriot FC Operator   GT: 98   EDU: HS Letter   Overseas: Korea,    Combat: Bahrain (100619-110525)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR

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 13 September 2011, 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 receiving a GOMOR for negligently firing a M9 (9mm) Pistol (110221), receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for being disrespectful in deportment to a noncommissioned officer (110412 ), receiving  a Field Grade Article 15 for sending texts to his wife when he was ordered to have no contact with her (110829), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 13 September 2011, the applicant waived his rights to consult with legal counsel, 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 19 September 2011, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
       
       The record contains a GOMOR, 21 February 2011.

       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 issues 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 applicant contends that he did not commit a crime because he was never given a no contact order by the commander.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence to support the contention.  In fact, the applicant’s two Articles 15 and counseling statements justify a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the government’s presumption of regularity and he has not provided any documentation or further evidence in support of his request for an upgrade of his discharge.   
       
       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: 10 October 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated 16 May 2012 and 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 AR20120010136
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages