Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/22 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting 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: Not in File (NIF) Discharge Received: Date: 970930 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: D Co, 2/227th Avn BN, Ft Hood, TX Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in file, however, the record indicates that the applicant was discharged as a PV1/E-1. Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 940513 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 04Mos, 18Days Misdemeanor waiver Total Service: 3 Yrs, 04Mos, 18Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 67V10 OBSN Scout Helicopter Rep GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: NIF Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ACGM, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Rocklin, CA Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records. However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 12c by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JKQ (i.e., misconduct-serious offense). The record contains two GOMORs dated 16 June 1997 and 4 December 1996 for DUI. 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. The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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: 23 February 2010 Location: Dallas, TX 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 AR20090008168 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 pages