Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/25 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the Applicant. 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: 080125 Discharge Received: Date: 080220 Chapter: 14-12B AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: Rear Detachment, 3d ACR, Ft Hood, TX Time Lost: AWOL X 1 day, (070717), & Civilian confinement x 8 days, (060918-060925), Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 061122, disobeyed a direct order from a NCO; reduction to E1, forfeiture $297 and 14 days restriction and extra duty (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 060405 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 18 weeks Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 10Mos, 11Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 10Mos, 11Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88M10/ Motor Transport Operator GT: 108 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 25 January 2008, 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 misconduct for going AWOL and patterns of misconduct, 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, waived his rights and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 4 February 2008, 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 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 the entire applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, 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 the former soldier’s 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 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 record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. 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: 26 March 2009 Location: Dallas, TX Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Texas Veterans Commission Witnesses/Observers: YES Exhibits Submitted: None VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080019898 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages