Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/10/14 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he was treated unfair at the time of his separation and needs the upgrade to move forward with the chance of employment opportunities in the future. Also, he served honorably in the National Guard for five years and would like to retain his benefits that he earned in the National Guard. 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: 100518 Discharge Received: Date: 100602 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Pattern of Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: E Battery, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, Fort Sill, OK Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 100323, failed to go to his appointed place of duty x 3 on (100309), (100308), (100305), reduction to Private First Class (E-3), forfeiture of $448.00 pay, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before (100919), extra duty for 14 days (CG) The suspension of the punishment of forfeiture of $448.00 pay imposed on (100323) was vacated, effective (100402), based on the applicant's offense of failing to go to his appointed place of duty on (100325). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 31 Current ENL Date: 090507 Current ENL Term: 3 Years 10 weeks Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 26 Days ????? Total Service: 9 Yrs, 0 Mos, 26 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG 000919-001107/NA ADT 001108-010326/NA ARNG 010327-050401/HD USARCG 050402-080918/NA Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 Unit Supply Spec GT: 115 EDU: GED Cert Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? 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 11 May 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of a pattern of misconduct, in that he did on diverse occasions, failed to report to his appointed place of duty between (100210-100325), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 18 May 2010, 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 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 21 May 2010, 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 submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his 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 that he was treated unfair at the time of his separation and needs the upgrade to move forward with the chance of employment opportunities in the future. 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. Further, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. The applicant further contends that he served honorably in the National Guard for five years and would like to retain his benefits that he earned in the National Guard. The analyst carefully examined the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review. 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 concluded that the discrediting entries in the applicant's record were not outweighed by prior or subsequent service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of the discharge being reviewed. 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: 10 June 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 11 October 2010. 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 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 AR20100025929 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages