Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/02 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: 070301 Discharge Received: Date: 070403 Chapter: 14-12c AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct, (Serious Offense) RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: Rear Detachment, 508th PIR, 4th BCT, Ft Bragg, NC Time Lost: AWOL (061020-070117) 89 days, mode of return is unknown. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 070228, AWOL (061020-070118); reduction to E2, forfeiture of $729 pay for one month, extra duty and restriction for 30 days (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 050329 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 09Mos, 07Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 09Mos, 07Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B1P Infantryman GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Houston, TX 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 1 March 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct commission of a serious offense for committing violation of Article 86 (AWOL), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and did not submit a statement in his 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 9 March 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 document 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 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. The analyst notes supporting documents dated 24 February 2009 with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder; however, this diagnosis is dated after separation from the service. 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: 22 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 AR20090007532 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages