Application Receipt Date: 060803 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 with ten character reference letters attached. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 970519 Discharge Received: Date: 970603 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: C Company, 2nd Battalion, 63rd Armor, Transition Center, Vilseck, APO, AE 09112 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 970401, Failed to go to his appointed place of duty (970203), (Company Grade) 2nd Article 15, 970429, Broke restriction (970413), (Company Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 760721 Current ENL Date: 950221 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 13 Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 13 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19K10 Abrams Armor Crewman GT: 91 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany (950621-970620) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 19 May 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (breaking restriction, numerous occasions of failure to be at his appointed place of duty, disobeying lawful orders of noncommissioned officers, failure to pay just debt, a dishonored check to AAFES, excessive speeding, making false official statements, and his apathetic attitude towards proper performance of his assigned duties), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. 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 service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 22 May 1997, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged 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 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, but a general discharge 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 for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result, it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service, his post service accomplishments and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 7 February 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result, it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length of the applicant's service, his post service accomplishments and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 9 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060011547 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 6 pages