Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/12 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 030106 Discharge Received: Date: 030211 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: 21st Sig Co, Arctic Warrior Bn, Fort Richardson, Alaska Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 000425 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 17 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 17 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31L Wire Sys Installer GT: 94 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Alaska Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Dallas, TX 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 6 January 2003, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for mandatory reclassification due to loss of security clearance, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was advised of his rights, consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted 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 with a general under honorable discharge. On 16 January 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a general 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 military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge to fully honorable. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the reason for discharge. The analyst does not condone the Applicant’s prior service financial indebtedness, however, determined that the characterization of service is now inequitable. The analyst found that the Applicant’s length of service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge mitigated the Applicant's discharge. Specifically, the Applicant was discharged solely because of his loss of security clearance for financial indebtedness which occurred prior to the Applicant's enlistment. There is no evidence indicating the Applicant's conduct while in the Army was unsatisfactory. To the contrary, the record contains multiple positive counseling statements and is void of any unfavorable counseling statements. Therefore, the analyst recommends that the Applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the analyst determined, however, that the reason for discharge is proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 26 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the Applicant’s length of service and the circumstances surrounding his discharge (loss of security clearance of which principal reason occurred prior to enlistment) and, as a result, it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief by changing the characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 4 No change 1 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 AR20080018623 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages