Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/17 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states that his discharge from the Army was improper due to the circumstances at the time. 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: 021122 Discharge Received: Date: 021220 Chapter: 14-12c(1) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKD Unit/Location: A Co, 1st Bn, 19th Inf, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: AWOL x2 for a total of 21 days (021015-021024, surrendered; 021025-021104, surrendered) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 021025, at Fort Benning, GA, on or about 14 October 2002 without authority, the applicant was AWOL from A Co, 1st Bn, 19th Inf and did remain so absent until 25 October 2002; punishment imposed was not part of the available record (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 020826 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 03Mos, 24Days includes 28 days excess leave (021123-021220) Total Service: 00 Yrs, 03Mos, 24Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that since his discharge he has completed two years of college at Devry University and maintained steady employment. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 November 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph14-12c(1), AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for being AWOL from on or about 15 October 2002 to on or about 25 October 2002 and from on or about 25 October 2002 to on or about 5 November 2002, with an Under Other Than Honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived his right to an administrative 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 with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 25 November 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of Under Other Than Honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of this regulation 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 all 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: 7 August 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. 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: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080016132 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages