Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/08/26 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that his discharge was inequitable because he diligently served his country to the best of his ability. He was a good Soldier up until the time he became part of the rear detachment. He had deployed to Iraq and had done well. He earned an Army Achievement Medal but once he was reassigned under SSG B he received an Article 15. He believes the punishment he received was cruel. He is requesting an upgrade of his discharge to honorable. 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: 051014 Discharge Received: Date: 051123 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: HHD, 6th Transp Bn, Fort Eustis, VA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 050708, failed to report to his designated place of duty on six occasions (between 040712 and 050412), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $617 for two months, 45 days of extra duty and restriction (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 031206 Current ENL Term: 3 Years with a 3-month extension Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 17Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 01Mos, 19Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 001005-031205/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 42L10/Admin Spc GT: 95 EDU: GED Overseas: SWA Combat: Kuwait (030112-030323), Iraq (030323-030704) Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, AGCM, ICM V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Naranja, FL Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 July 2004, 13 July 2004, 14 July 2004, 10 November 2004, 14 December 2004, 8 April 2005, 12 April 2005, 26 April 2005, 9 May 2005, he failed to go to his appointed place of duty; on 26 August 2005, he unlawfully allowed a person without a valid driver’s license to operate his privately owned vehicle; on 26 August 2005, he was involved in an altercation with another individual that resulted in the damage to government property; on 1 September 2005, he failed to obey an order from a noncommissioned officer; on 2 September 2005, he refused to pay his spouse her entitled portion of BAH, and violated a lawful order from a commissioned officer to make the monthly allotments to his spouse; between 31 October 2004 and 29 March 2005, he was derelict in the performance of his duties, by not following through with his Medical Board process during this time period and missing six scheduled appointments. The unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. On 13 October 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and indicated that he would submit a statement in his own behalf which is not contained in the record. 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 with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 31 October 2005, the separation authority indicated that the unit commander’s notification and recommendation alleged several reasons for separation; including allegations that, on 1 September 2005, the applicant refused to pay a portion of his BAH to his spouse and that on 2 September 2005 he violated an order from a commissioned officer to make monthly allotments to his spouse. The separation authority found that, pursuant to the separation agreement between the applicant and his wife, dated 1 June 2005, he had no obligation of spousal support after 1 June 2005. Accordingly, the applicant’s non-payment of support and failure to make an allotment to his spouse could not serve as a basis for separation. However, the remaining reasons for separation supported the applicant’s separation with a general discharge. On 31 October 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant contends that he was unfairly discharged; however, the analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the repeated incidents of misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant’s service was marred by one field grade Article 15, for multiple violations of the UCMJ and numerous negative counseling statements which are contained in his record. 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 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. Moreover, the analyst acknowledges the applicant’s in-service accomplishments and considered the quality of his service during the initial portion of the enlistment under review. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the characterization of discharge Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 13 May 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Four character reference letters, a self-authored statement, AAM award, certificate of achievement, oath of enlistment, honorable discharge certificate, DD Form 214. 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20100022335 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages