Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2012/03/16 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 10 months of service with no other adverse action. The isolated incident referred to when he was recommended to take an in lieu of a medical discharge. He was unable to get proper medical attention or a recommendation for a discharge for medical reasons. He explained this to his command leadership and was told to either perform his duties as assigned or take actions that would lead to a courts martial and eventual discharge Under Honorable Conditions (General). His medical conditions that occured while in service, left him with impaired abilities to make any rational decisions. He had every desire to remain in service, every desire to perform all assigned duties, but he was simply unable due to the medical conditions that were beyond his control. 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: 010322 Discharge Received: Date: 020404 Chapter: 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: A Company, 1st Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment, 1st Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, AL Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020107, failed to follow a lawful order not to smoke while in IET status (011216), extra duty and restriction for 7 days. (Summarized) 020123, failed to go to the morning and noon company formations; and with intent to deceive, made a false official statement (020109), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $289.00 pay per month for one month, and extra duty and restriction for 14 days. (CG) 020306, wrongfully appropriated a compact disc case and approximately twenty compact discs, of a value of about $200.00 (020124); and was disrespectful in language toward a SSG (020122); forfeiture of $552.00 per month for two months; reduction to E-1; and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (FG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 010717 Current ENL Term: 05 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 08 Mos, 18 Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 08 Mos, 18 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 116 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 March 2001, 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 a pattern of misconduct for failing to go to the morning and noon company formations, making a false official statement when he stated he went to Mental Health Clinic for his appointment (020109); was disrespectful in language to a drill sergeant, stole a compact disc case and about 20 compact discs from a fellow Soldier, valued at about $200.00, which was later changed to wrongful appropriation (020124); disobeyed a written order (not to enter the female barracks (020219); and failing to be at his appointed place of duty (020225), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 25 March 2001, 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 action and recommended approval of the separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 and documents 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 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. The applicant contends his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 10 months of service with no other adverse action. The analyst noted the applicant's contentions; however, a review of the applicant's record reveals numerous incidents of misconduct that led to his discharge. The numerous incidents were discrediting entries which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. The analyst having examined all the circumstances determined that the applicant's incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant's service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. Furthermore, the applicant claims that he was unable to get proper medical attention or a recommendation for a discharge for medical reasons. He explained this to his command leadership and was told to either perform his duties as assigned or they would take actions that would lead to a court-martial. The analyst noted the applicant's contentions; however, the evidence of record shows that the command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of non-judicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The evidence of record established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. The applicant's record does not show any medical condition that would have not allowed him to continue to perform his duties to standard. 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. Lastly, the applicant expresses that his service connected medical condition left him with impaired abilities to make any rational decisions. The analyst noted the applicant's contentions; however, the record shows that on 14 March 2002, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which indicates that he was mentally responsible, with thought content as clear, and was able to recognize right from wrong. 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: 10 August 2012 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293; DD Form 214; 4 character reference letters; and medical and Department of Veterans Affairs documents, 51 pages. 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 Board Vote: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) X. Board Action Directed Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature Approval Authority: ARCHIE L. DAVIS III Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army Secretary Recorder 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 AR20120006269 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4 pages