Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080925 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 149 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 030620 Chapter: NIF AR: NIF Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: Department of the Army, Headquarters, 108th Div (Institutional Training), 1330 Westover Street, Charlotte, NC 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: 951017 Current ENL Term: 08 Years USAR Current ENL Service: 07 Yrs, 08 Mos, 03 Days ????? Total Service: 07 Yrs, 08 Mos, 03 Days ????? Previous Discharges: ADT-951122-960419/UNC Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77W Water Purification GT: NIF EDU: HS GED Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Jacksonville, NC Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the Applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 19 June 2003, Orders 03-170-00001, DA HQS, 108th Division (Institutional Training), Charlotte, NC, discharged the Applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 20 June 2003, with an under honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Army policy states that a general, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a fully honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the Applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge. The Applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the discharge from the Army. However, the Applicant’s record does contain properly constituted Orders 03-170-00001, dated 19 June 2003, from DA HQS, 108th Division (Institutional Training), Charlotte, NC, discharging the Applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 20 June 2003, with an under honorable conditions discharge. In the absence of information to the contrary, the analyst presumed Government Regularity in the discharge process and was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the Applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Furthermore, because the analyst determined that the Applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army, if the Applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 15 July 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080015622 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages