Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 090505 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 070808 Discharge Received: Date: 070823 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: F Co, 1/68th Ar Bn, 3rd BCT, Ft. Carson, CO Time Lost: AWOL 34 days (070608-070712), mode of return unknown. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070717, AWOL (070608-070712); reduction to E1, extra duty and restriction for 45 days (FG). 060815, At FOB Warhorse, Iraq, was disrespectful to a commissioned officer by calling her a derogatory name; reduction to E2 (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 17 Current ENL Date: 040928 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 19 Weeks Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 21 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 21 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88M Motor Trans Op GT: 102 EDU: GED Overseas: SWA Combat: Iraq (051212-061107) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR, CAB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Brandon, MS Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 August 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 misconduct—for being AWOL (070609-070712), drinking in public, obstruction of a police officer or fireman, and disrespect to a commissioned officer, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The Applicant waived consultation with legal counsel and was advised of the impact of the discharge action. 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 12 August 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 the Applicant’s military records, and the issue 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 diagnosis of PTSD outlined in the documents with his application. However, in review of the Applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that this medical condition did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted and that the Applicant fully understood the difference between right and wrong when he committed the misconduct that caused the unit commander to initiate the separation action. 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: 15 July 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090008585 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages