Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2009/12/08 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: 041005 Discharge Received: Date: 041027 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: HHT, 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, Camp Garry Owen, APO AP Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 031209, at or near Camp Garry Owen, Korea, on or about 20 July 2003, did steal a portable CD player, of a value greater than $100.00, the property of another Soldier; reduction to Private (E-2), forfeiture of $301.00, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 6 June 2004, extra duty and restriction for 14 days (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 20 Current ENL Date: 020402 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 26Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19D10/Cavalry Scout GT: 94 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he has enrolled in college in order to pursue a degree in criminal justice. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 August 2004, 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 testing positive for THC on two occasions, and receiving a Company Grade Article 15 for larceny and housebreaking, 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, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army 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 15 October 2004, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The evidence of record contains a CID Report of Investigation (ROI) dated 30 June 2004. 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of 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 the former Soldier’s 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 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. 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. Additionally, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. In view of the foregoing the analyst determined that the characterization of service and reason for discharge 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 February 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Texas Veterans Commission Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: Character Letter 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 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 AR20090021655 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages