Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 080317 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states "I was denied the right to counsel. I choice to have a civilian attorney w/ a my military attoney as co-counsel due to my civilian attoney's unformiluarity with military procedures and was told I could have only one attoney. Section 838. Art 38. Duties of the Defense counsel state that I may have my military counsel serve as co-counsel to my civilian counsel if I so wish. Myself and my civilian counsel was informed by the president of the board and my military counsel that I could not have duel counsel. This is a direct violation of my rights to councel. I am requesting that my separtation was invalid." 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: 060609 Discharge Received: Date: 070627 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: USAREC Great Lakes RBN TA, Fort Knox, KY Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 1967/08 HOR City, State: Detroit, MI Current ENL Date: 020801 Current ENL Term: Indefinite Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 10Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 16 Yrs, 08Mos, 03Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-901025-940314/HD RA-940315-970312/HD RA-970313-000627/HD RA-000628-020731/HD Highest Grade: E7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 42A3P5W/Human Resources Specialist GT: 120 EDU: Coll Grad Overseas: Germany, Southwest Asia Combat: Saudi Arabia/Desert Storm/NIF Decorations/Awards: MSM, ARCOM-3, AAM-3, AGCM-5, NDSM-3, AFEM, GWOTSM, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-2, KLM-SA, KLM-K, CIB, EIB, MPB, SPB, PB, AAB V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 9 June 2006, 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 serious offenses for being arrested on (060223) by Michigan State University Police and charged with conspiracy to commit home invasion, home invasion, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and five counts of weapons-felony firearm by carrying or having in his possession a firearm, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 19 June 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board. The applicant did not submit a statement on 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 with an under other then honorable conditions discharge. On 12 February 2007, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of his rights. On 9 May 2007, the administrative separation board convened. The applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended that the applicant be discharged with issuance of a character of service of general, under honorable conditions. On 9 June 2007, the separation authority approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board 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, documents, 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant issue, however, 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. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 23 February 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: Yes Witnesses/Observers: Yes Exhibits Submitted: None 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 0 No change 5 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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 determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 23 February 2009 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080004302 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages