Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080702 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 149 and supporting document submitted by the Applicant. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 060106 Discharge Received: Date: 060619 Chapter: 12-1C AR: 135-178 Reason: Misconduct (Commission of a Serious Offense/Civil Conviction) RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: HQDA, US Army HRC, St Louis, MO Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 030607 Current ENL Term: 08 Years USAR/NY ARNG Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 12 Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 01 Mos, 19 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 000427-000515/NIF ADT 000516-000831/UNC NY ARNG 000901-011219/NIF NY ARNG 011220-030606/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12B Combat Engineer GT: 115 EDU: HS Grad, some college Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: New York City, NY Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 January 2006, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 12, paragraphs 12-1c and 12-2a, AR 175-138, by reason of misconduct—for misconduct, commission of a serious offense and conviction by a civil court; specifically, conviction by a civil court of operating a vehicle with a suspended driver's license, two counts of possession of cocaine, trespass, fraudulent use of a credit card, uttering a forged instrument and, giving a false name or identification and, thereby sentenced to incarcertion for four 1-year periods, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The record evidence indicates that on 19 June 2006, HQ, US Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, Orders D-06-613882, discharged the Applicant from the United States Army Reserve effective 19 July 2006, with an under other than honorable discharge. On 13 June 2006, the separation authority considered the Applicant's involuntary separation action for misconduct under the provisions of AR 135-178, Chapter 12 and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and to reduce the Applicant in rank to Private (E1). b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel of the U.S. Army Reserve. Chapter 12 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, however, a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the Applicant’s military records, and the issue and documents submitted with the application, 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 the former Soldier’s service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the misconduct, the Applicant diminished the quality of 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 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: 8 April 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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 to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080010904 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages