Application Receipt Date: 060710 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: 951207 Discharge Received: Date: 960117 Chapter: 16-5 AR: 635-200 Reason: Non-Retention on Active Duty RE: SPD: KGH Unit/Location: 25th Chemical Company, 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry, APO AE 09076, Buedingen, Germany, APO AE 09165 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 951127, Willfully disobeyed a lawful order from a SSG (951012), failed to go to her appointed place of duty (951012), through design miss the movement of 25th Chemical Company deployment to the training area with which you were required in the course of duty to move (951013), and without authority failed to go to her appointed place of duty (951013), (Company Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 750226 Current ENL Date: 941228 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 20 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 54B10 Chemical Oper Specialist GT: 94 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany (950522-960117) 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 24 November 1995, the applicant was barred to reenlistment. On 1 November 1995 the applicant reviewed and acknowledged receiving a copy of unit commander’s recommendation and declined to submit a statement in her own behalf. The separation authority approved the bar to reenlistment and directed applicant be advised that should she feel she will be unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment she may request immediate discharge under the provisions of Chapter 16, AR 635-200. On 7 December 1995, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 16, AR 635-200, by reason of a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. The unit and intermediate commander recommended approval of the separation action with an honorable discharge. On 4 January 1996, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge. Incident to the request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted. Army policy states that the service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the applicant’s narrative reason for discharge. The analyst noted that the applicant was voluntarily separated by the unit commander under the provisions of Chapter 16, Paragraph 5, AR 635-200 by reason of failure to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment with an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the solider determined that she was unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment and requested immediate separation. These facts were stipulated in the separation documentation and acknowledged by the applicant. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 6 June 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A 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 and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None 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: 21 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060009775 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages