Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/02/15 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The Applicant states in effect, "all incidents were alcohol-related, therefore, I believe I am an ASAP failure/failure to rehabilitate". 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: 070905 Discharge Received: Date: 070928 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: A Co, 2nd BN, 87th Inf Reg, Ft Drum, NY Time Lost: AWOL x 1 day (070717-070718) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070801, AWOL (070717-070718), wrongfully consuming alcohol while under the age of 21 (070713 & 070717), assault on Ms. M by choking her, pulling her hair and throwing her on the bed (070713), restriction and extra duty for 45 days (FG.) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 060201 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 07Mos, 26Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 07Mos, 26Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10/Infantryman GT: 98 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR, UN Medal 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 September 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—on 1 August 2007, received a Field Grade Article 15 for being AWOL, violating a lawful general order and assault, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant declined consultation with legal counsel 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 13 September 2007, 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, 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 he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 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. Therefore, the analyst determined that 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: 5 December 2008 Location: Washington, D. C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: No Exhibits Submitted: No 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 XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080002730 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 pages