Application Receipt Date: 060501	

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: 000425
Discharge Received:     Date: 000729   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: HHOC 101st MI Bn APO AE 09036  

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 990623-without authority, fail to go to appointed place of duty x 3, (990518), (990607), and (990617), (CG).

990210-without authority, fail to go to appointed place of duty, (990126), (CG).

981207-without authority, fail to go to appointed place of duty, (981202), (Summarized).

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  790619  
Current ENL Date: 970710    Current ENL Term: 6 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Total Service:  03 Yrs, 00 Mos, 20 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 98C10 EW/Signal Intelligence Analyst   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: KCM, OSR, NM
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 25 April 2000, 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 (on numerous occasions failed to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, even after receiving counseling, corrective training, nonjudicial punishment, and being barred to reenlistment.  In addition, his general military bearing, discipline and respect are not in keeping with the standards expected of a Soldier in the United States Army, and continues to to be so even after counseling, corrective training, and being barred to reenlistment.  Given ample time and opportunity he has failed to apply himself in a manner to prove his worthtiness of continued military service and the lifting of the bar to reenlistment), 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.  On 18 July 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 
      
      A local Bar to Reenlistment was approved on (990719).  

      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 discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance.  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 his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.  Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable.     

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 070228              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




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     No change    (Character)
		 			       	Change     No change    (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 and voted not to change it.





















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

ROBERT L. HOUSE
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 070307
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060006356

Applicant Name:  Mr.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages