Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/21 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: 071004 Discharge Received: Date: 071031 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: B Co, 32nd Medical Bn, Ft Bragg, NC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070830, at Fort Bragg, NC, on or about 30 June 2007, the applicant was disrespectful in language toward a SSG; at Fort Bragg, NC, on or about 6 July 2007, and was disrespectful in deportment toward a Senior NCO (1SG), by yelling at her using explicit language; punishment imposed was not part of the available record (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 25 Current ENL Date: 070405 Current ENL Term: 3 Years (administrative waiver approved on 070309) Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 05Mos, 17Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 020420-020513/UKN RA 020514-060105/HD Break in Svc 060106-070404/NA Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 68J10/Medical Logistics Specialist GT: 104 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 25 September 2007, 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 a pattern of misconduct—for engaging in numerous acts prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the military service, which have resulted in two Article 15 actions, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. She was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her 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 10 October 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 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 all the 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue and determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. Further, 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. Additionally, the method in which another Soldier’s case was handled is not relevant to the applicant’s case. Applicable regulations state that each case must be decided on an individual basis considering the unique facts and circumstances of that particular case. Finally, the analyst noted the applicant's employment issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. In view of the foregoing, 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: 28 October 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090002307 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages