Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009423
Original file (AR20060009423.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
Application Receipt Date: 060703	

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: 020911
Discharge Received:     Date: 021023   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Physical Standards
RE:     SPD: JFT
Unit/Location: C Battery, 2nd Bn 20th Field Artillery 4th ID (Mech) Fort Hood, TX 76544 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  700626  
Current ENL Date: 011031    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 11 Mos, 23 Days ?????
Total Service:  11 Yrs, 09 Mos, 10 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: ARNG-921113-951229/NA
                                      RA-941230-970528/HD
                                      RA-970529-011030/HD 
Highest Grade: E4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13R10 FA Firefinder Radar Operator   GT: 113   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: SouthWest Asia    Combat: Saudia Arabia (900802-920901)
Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, (2), SWASM w/ 3 BSS, ASR, KLM (SA), KLM (K), AFGCM, AFOSSLTR  
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:
      The evidence of record shows that on 11 September 2002, 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 (failed two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests on 8 July 2002 and 9 August 2002), 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 16 September 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
      
      The analyst noted that on the applicant's DD Form 214, the Separation Authority is listed as AR 635-200, Paragraph 13-2 (f), should read Paragraph 13-2 (e).  The analyst recommends that the Board administratively change the Separation Authority to read AR 635-200,"Paragraph 13-2 (e)."     

      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 issue he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance.  The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  While the applicant's unsatisfactory performance is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge remains 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: 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    5    No change  0 - 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  However, the Board determined that the reason for 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: 

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 AR20060009423

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013361

    Original file (AR20060013361.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 7 October 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance (you will not develop sufficiently to become a satisfactory soldier; received a field grade article 15, and repeated counseling statements), with a general discharge. On 15 October 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014935

    Original file (AR20060014935.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 31 July 1996, 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 (received a Company Grade Article 15 on (960522) for three specifications of FTR), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060009255

    Original file (AR20060009255.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Records show the applicant chain of command reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge . It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013040

    Original file (AR20060013040.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 04 Mos, 07 Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 11 September 2002, 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 (failed two consecutive record Army Physical Fitness Tests on 1 July and 29 September), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Certification Signature and Date Approval...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070013581

    Original file (AR20070013581.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 03Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 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 APFT failure on more than two occasions and for not showing progress after being entered in the weight control program on 13 August 2002, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. ...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014815

    Original file (AR20060014815.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 23 Days ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 June 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, for failure to report for leave sign-out (020603), for failure to report for duty driver (020601), failure to report to the scheduled APFT (020130), disobeying a lawful order from an NCO (011230),...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070000481

    Original file (AR20070000481.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did submit a statement in his own behalf, which was not found in the available record. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060010215

    Original file (AR20060010215.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable characterization of service. Accordingly, the Board voted to change the narrative reason on the DD Form 214 to current standards “Physical Standards”, with a corresponding separation (SPD) code of "LFT." Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011400

    Original file (AR20070011400.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. That DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060008530

    Original file (AR20060008530.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 02 Mos, 23 Days ????? Accordingly, the analyst recommend that the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 be changed to "physical standards" with the corresponding separation code of "JFT." 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...