Application Receipt Date: 060717 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. 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: 940607 Discharge Received: Date: 940715 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: HHB Divarty FC 1st CAV Division Fort Hood, TX 76545 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940512-violated a lawful general regulation, by wrongfully using and possessing another U.S. Army Soldier's DD Form 2A, (940502)/Company Grade. The suspension of punishment of $407.00 per month for two months, imposed on (931110) was vacated on (940502), for the following offense, possessing another U.S. Army Soldier's DD Form 2A. 931110-violated a lawful general order/regulation, by wrongfully having a stun gun in the barracks, (931026), unlawfully shock a PFC on his arm with a stun gun, (931026), unlawfully shock a SPC on his buttocks with a stun gun, (931026), unlawfully shock a SGT on his buttocks with a stun gun, (931026), assault a SGT, who then was in the execution of his duties, by trying to shock him with a stun gun, (931026)/Field Grade. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 730130 Current ENL Date: 921106 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 08 Mos, 10 Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 06 Mos, 10 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG-900309-910812/NA ADT-910813-911102/UNC ARNG-911103-921105/NA Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 82C10 FA Surveyor GT: 98 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR 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 7 June 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (he received a battery grade article 15 and a field grade article 15, a vacation of suspension of punishment and five derogatory counseling statements), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. 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 23 June 1994, 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 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, 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. 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 determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 17 April 2007 Location: Chicago, IL Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: No Exhibits Submitted: The applicant submitted three additional documents in support of his personal appearance hearing. 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, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length of the applicant’s service, the time that has elasped since his discharge and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason 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: 8 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060010073 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages