Application Receipt Date: 060710	

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: 011211
Discharge Received:     Date: 020105   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: 240th Quartermaster Company, APO, AE  09139 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010828, Willfully disobeyed a lawful command from a 1LT (010512), (Field Grad). 

The suspension of the punishment of reduction to Private (E-1) imposed on (010828) was vacated, effective (011104) based on the applicant's offense of disobeying a lawful command, issued by a CPT (010808).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  800707  
Current ENL Date: 990928    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 8 Days ?????
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 3 Mos, 8 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 77F10 Petoleum Supply Specialist   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany (000606-020104)   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR
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:
      Evidence of record shows that on 11 December 2001, 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 (you have repeatedly failed to perform satisfactory, received a Field Grade Article 15 for misuse of a government travel card in the amount of $7427.14, and the suspended punishment of the aforementioned Article 15 was vacated because you disobeyed a lawful order, assaulted another soldier while you were intoxicated, and finally, you have been counseled for the following misconduct: failure to be at your appointed place of duty and for showing disrespect and insubordination to a noncommissioned officer), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 27 December 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  
      
      The applicant has an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated (30 August 2001) in her Official Military Personnel Folder. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      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 and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit 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 her service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By her unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.  Furthermore, if the applicant desires to reenlist, she should contact the local recruiter to determine her eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both 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: N/A

Witnesses/Observers: N/A 

Exhibits Submitted: N/A




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 0    No change 5   - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief.  
























Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: None
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 AR20060009761

Applicant Name:  Ms.        
______________________________________________________________________


Page 6 of 6 pages