Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/10 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 951115 Discharge Received: Date: 960104 Chapter: 5-3 AR: 135-178 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: HHC 28th AVN GP, Arlington, TX 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: 17 Current ENL Date: 940208 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 10Mos, 30Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 10Mos, 30Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E1 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 96B/Intell Analyst GT: 112 EDU: NIF Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Irving, TX 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 his discharge from the Army Reserve. The evidence of record indicate the applicant was ordered to Initial Active Duty for Training with a report date of 3 July 1995 as per MEPS Dallas Orders 104.1. The record further show that the Commander initiated discharge proceeding citing AR 135-178 for "Refusal to Ship", on 5 November 1995. On 4 January 1996, DA HQS, 90th United States Army Reserve Command, 1920 Harry Wurzbach Highway, San Antonio, TX 78209-6097, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 4 January 1996, with an uncharacterized discharge. The record contains a properly constituted Order as described above. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178 with a characterization of service of uncharacterized conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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 analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of the service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant issue and determined that he met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 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. Additionally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 18 September 2009 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None 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 AR20090000711 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 pages