Application Receipt Date: 060918	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: Record Review, 970205

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293.  The applicant submitted an unsigned letter from a MD, GP; a letter of reference; a certificate of completion of course of study; a certificate of Honorable discharge from his State National Guard.

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: 960307
Discharge Received:     Date: 960328   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: Headquarters and Headquarters Services Battery, 2d Battalion, 2d field Artillery, Fort Sill, Oklahoma 73503 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 22 February 1996-disrespect in language towards a SSG on 9 February 1996; disrespect in deportment towards a SSG on 9 February 1996; Battery Grade.

13 November 1995, Letter of Reprimand-for failing to salute and render the proper courtesy to officers; administrative.

4 January 1996, Letter of Reprimand-for lying to a CSM; administrative.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  611024  
Current ENL Date: 930505    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Total Service:  2 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71M10, Chaplain Assistant   GT: 114   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASUA, AAM (3), NDSM, ASR, NCOPDR, C/ACH (1)
V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Home of Record: 
Current Address: 
Post Service Accomplishments: Army National Guard Certificate of Honorable Discharge, 2004; MS in Criminal Justice, June 2002; personal letters of reference.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 1996, 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 were barred from reenlistment on 8 August 1995.  This bar was reviewed for the second 3-month review and was not lifted.  In addition, you have received two memorandums of reprimand and a battery grade Article 15.  You were counseled numerous times for disrespect and substandard performance.  You were also cited for driving on a suspended license), with a general discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted 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 discharge.  On 18 March 1996, 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 Certificate, dated 14 July 1995.
      
      

      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 and independent documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable.  This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct.  While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  The analyst found that the time that has elasped since his discharge and his post service accomplishments, to include his Army National Guard service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 2 April 2007              
Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None




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, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, his post service accomplishments, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority.



















Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner									        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority, under provisions of Ch 5, AR 635-200
Other: None
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: ?????

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


MARY E. SHAW				DATE: 11 April 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20060013350

Applicant Name:  Mr.       
______________________________________________________________________




Page 1 of 6 pages