Application Receipt Date: 060414 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. The submitted attachments number over 200 pages and relate issues with regard to procedures of the Administrative Discharge Board Hearing. 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: 980914 Discharge Received: Date: 990512 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: St. Albans Recruiting Company, 142 MacCorkle Ave., St. Albans, West Virginia 25177-1859 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980904-Fail to go to his appointed place of duty on (971231); violation of lawful general regulation by wrongfully having unofficial contact with a female applicant, and wrongfully sharing lodging with a female applicant on (971230); making false official statements with intent to deceive to a 1st Sgt on (971231)/Field Grade. Letter of Reprimand: (971027) for recruiting improprieties. (Administrative) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 620323 Current ENL Date: 960527 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 11 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 15 Yrs, 2 Mos, 19 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-840224-871221/HD RA-871222-900821/HD RA-900822-960526/HD Highest Grade: E-7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 18E4P, SF Commo Sergeant GT: 115 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia, Somalia Combat: Saudi-Arabia (901203-910330) and (911125-911213), Somalia (Mogadishu) (930320-930917) Decorations/Awards: BSM, MSM, ARCOM w CDD "V", ARCOM (2), AAM (2), JMUA, GCM (4), NDSM, AFEM (2), SWASM w/ 3 BSS, HSM, NCOPDR w NUM 3, ASR, OSR, KLM, KLM (K), CIB, PB, AAB, SFT, V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted documents related to his enlistment into the West Virginia Army National Guard. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 23 July 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (violating a lawful general regulation and making false official statements with intent to deceive), with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, requested consideration of his case by an administration separation board, 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. On 3 February 1999, the Administrative Separation Board met; applicant appeared without counsel present. The Administrative Separation Board recommended that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. On 31 March 1999, the separation authority approved the finings and recommendations of the Administrative Separation Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. CID Investigation dated 27 April 1998. 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 several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails reinstatement to rank/grade "SFC/E-7." VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 February 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: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 16 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060005388 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages