Application Receipt Date: 060525 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document. 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: 051220 Discharge Received: Date: 060307 Chapter: 4 AR: 600-8-24 Reason: Unacceptable Conduct RE: SPD: JNC Unit/Location: HHC 1st Bn 6th Infantry APO AE 09034 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): General Court Martial-unlawfully strike a SPC in the face with his fist (031012), commit a wrongful and dishonorable act upon a female, by grabbing her buttocks and directing vulgar language towards her, (031012). He was to be reprimanded, to forfeit $1000.00 pay per month for six months, and to be confined for one month. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 780802 Current ENL Date: 020512 Current ENL Term: Indef Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 09 Mos, 26 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 09 Mos, 26 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: 01 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11A Infantry GT: NA EDU: BS Degree Overseas: Germany Combat: Iraq (030328-030615). Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, CIB V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 26 May 2005, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, by reason of derogatory information. On 25 November 2003, the applicant voluntarily tendered his resignation from the service under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, resignation in lieu of further elimination proceedings. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The applicant was a probationary officer and therefore not entitled to an administrative separation board. On 20 December 2005, the Commander, 1st Armored Division, APO AE 09096, recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the service with a general, under honorable conditions. The Ad Hoc Review Board met, and on 6 February 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board, and directed that he be discharge from the U.S. Army with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets for the basic authority for Officer Transfers and discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the eliminating of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and the interest of national security. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After careful review of all the applicant's military records for the term of service under review, the analyst recommend that relief be denied in this case. The evidence of record shows that the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 600-8-24, Chapter 4, paragraph 2b, unacceptable conduct with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The analyst concluded that by his misconduct, the applicant diminished the overall 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. 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. Accordingly, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 June 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 28 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060007472 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages