Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that the discharge he received, from his understanding it was to have been automatically upgraded after 2 years if he had no incidents. He has been out almost 11 years without any problems. Now with the economy in a bad state, he tried to go back into the Army and was denied. Learning it was due to his discharge not being an honorable and his reentry eligibility (RE) code not being a 1. He feels he has grown and matured enough to better understand the military and would like a second chance for him and his family. 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: 980929 Discharge Received: Date: 981103 Chapter: 14-12c(1) AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKD Unit/Location: Support Company, 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, CO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980901, wrongfully and without authority wear upon his uniform the rank of Specialist on or about 980114-980831, reduction to the rank of Private (E-2), forfeiture of $242.00 pay for one month, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 980301, (CG) Article 15, 980114, willfully disobeyed a lawful order from SGT, a noncommissioned officer x 2 on or about 971003, and again on or about 971203, reduction to Private First Class (E-3), extra duty and restriction for 14 days (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: 950627 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 7 Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 4 Mos, 7 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 33F10 MSE Network SW Systems Oper GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany (dates-NIF) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 September 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense; in that he disobeyed an order from a noncommissioned officer x 2 on or about 971003, and again on or about 971203, wrongfully and without authority wear the rank of Specialist on or between 980114-980831, 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. 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, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The analyst determined that 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 the 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. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that the discharge he received, from his understanding it was to have been automatically upgraded after 2 years if he had no incidents. He has been out almost 11 years without any problems. He tried to go back into the Army and was denied, learning that it was due to his discharge not being an honorable and his reentry eligibility (RE) code not being a 1. He feels he has grown and matured enough to better understand the military and would like a second chance for him and his family. The US Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that requires automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. Additionally, the analyst found that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. The analyst further found no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the analyst found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26 separation code as "JKD." In view of the error, the analyst recommends to the Board that an administrative change be made to block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, and block 26 separation code as "JKQ," as approved by the separation authority. Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25 and 26, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service, to include the reentry eligibility (RE) code was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 6 August 2010 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None submitted by the applicant. VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation Notwithstanding the propriety of the applicant's discharge, the Board found that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 25, separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), and block 26 separation code as "JKD." In view of the error, the Board directs ARBA Support Division St. Louis to correct block 25; to reflect AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c; and block 26; to reflect JKQ, as approved by the separation authority and issue you a new DD Form 214. Except for the foregoing modification to the applicant's DD Form 214, blocks 25 and 26, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: The Board directs ARBA Support Division St. Louis to correct block 25; to reflect AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c; and block 26; to reflect JKQ,and issue a new DD Form 214. RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090017713 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages