Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/09/19	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he received an Article 15 for breaking his profile and disobeying an officer several months after the incident.  Its inclusion was fabricated and unfair.  He is interested in government employment but his discharge interferes with gaining employment.  He was also a good Soldier.

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: 020817
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 020913   Chapter: 14-12c    AR: 635-200
Reason: Misconduct	   RE:     SPD: JKQ   Unit/Location: C Co, 2nd Bn, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020618, disobeying a commissioned officer (020531), reduced to E-1; forfeiture of $257 (suspended); 14-day extra duty and restriction, (CG)

010807, violating a lawful general regulation by having 0.05 BAC while on DRB-1 status and being drunk on duty (010722), reduced to E-2; forfeiture of $272; 14-day extra duty and restriction, (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 010117    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 07 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 07 Mos, 27 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B (Infantryman)   GT: 98   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

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 5 August 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—for disobeying a commissioned officer on two occasions; violating his temporary profile; causing further injury to himself; disobeying an NCO; being drunk on duty; and violating a lawful general regulation, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 5 August 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 17 August 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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 a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue and document submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.    
       
       The analyst determined 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 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's contentions regarding his disagreement with the offenses cited in his Article 15 proceedings and its applicability to his discharge were carefully considered.  However, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  The applicant’s statements alone do not overcome the presumption of government regularity in this case and the application contains no documentation or further evidence in support of this request for an upgrade of the discharge. 
       
       The analyst noted the applicant's employment issues; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.
       
       The analyst also acknowledges the applicant's in service accomplishment of being a good Soldier as stated in his application.  However, the analyst did not find this sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review.  
       
       The analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst 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.   
       
       The applicant did not submit any documents in support of the personal appearance hearing.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 	Date: 8 April 2013         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149, dated 8 September 2012; DD Form 214 for service under current review.

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 Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge to be 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




JOSEPH M. BYERS
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder





























Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTH - Under Other Than Honorable 
												Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20120017305
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages