Application Receipt Date: 060331 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293; the applicant states that at the time of his service, he was not ready to undertake military life. He accepts responsibility for his Article 15s and wishes for a second chance to serve his country. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 010808 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: Company D, 1st Battalion, 4th Aviation Regiment, 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Hood, Texas 76544 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 000830 - Failure to go to his appointed place of duty X2 on (000629) and (000609)/Company Grade The record indicates that the Chief, Transition Center, HQ III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, requested a change of the DD-214 of the applicant on 010914, indicating that the applicant was to be reduced to PV1/E1, effective date: 010710. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 810103 Current ENL Date: 990629 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 10 Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 1 Mos, 10 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 68X10, Armament Electrical Systems Repairer GT: 121 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None were submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12b, AR 635-200, by reason of pattern of misconduct (he received a Company Grade Article 15 on 30 August 2000 for two specifications of failure to go on (000629 and 000609); he was counseled again and again for failing to report to formations on (010412, 040405, 010216, 001214, 001116, 001114, 001109, 001102, 001024, 000928, 000601, 000501, 000420, 000418, 000331, 000330); he was counseled for failing to maintain his uniform and appearance on (010329), (000829), (000609), (000601); he was counseled for failing to maintain his living area in accordance with company standards on (010303) (Mar, Feb, Jan), on (010130), (000320), and (000124); he was counseled for failing to abide by his financial responsiblities on (010303) for (Jan 01, and Dec 00) and (010130)) - with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted 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. The separation authority approval letter directing that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, is not a part of the available records, and the analyst is presuming government regularity in the discharge process. On 4 September 2001, Orders 247-0212 DA, HQ III Corps, Fort Hood, TX 76544-5050, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 8 August 2001. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge 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 he submitted, the analyst found that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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 his 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. Therefore, the analyst found that the characterization of service and the reason for discharge were both proper and equitable and recommends the Board vote to deny relief in this case. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 January 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 2 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004602 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 pages