Application Receipt Date: 070405

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See applicant's attached 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: 030708
Discharge Received:     Date: 030714
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: A Company, 1st Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment, 1st
Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, AL  36362-5082

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030424/Disobeying a lawful command
from a Drill Sergeant (SSG) to turn in his TV, play station, games and
movies, and return the day room chairs/(Company Grade).

2nd Article 15/030521/Failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty on or about (030506)/(Company Grade).

3rd Article 15/030619/Failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed
place of duty X 5, on or about (030514, 030515, 030516, 030524, and
030527)/(Company Grade).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
DOB:  830501
Current ENL Date: 020702    Current ENL Term: 05 Years       
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 13Days      
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 00Mos, 13Days      
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E2
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No
MOS: None   GT: 124   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM
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 8 July 2003, 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 (receiving three Article 15s for the following offenses;
disobeying a lawful command from a drill sergeant on13 April 2003; failure
to be at his appointed place of duty 6 May 2003, and failure to be at his
appointed place of duty 14, 16, 24 and 27 May 2003; displayed an apathetic
attitude, demonstrated unruly and disruptive behavior characteristics by
continued disciplinary infractions and disrespect for noncommissioned
officers and was counseled on several occasions), with a general under
honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The
applicant waived consultation 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 9 July 2003, the separation
authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization
of service of general, under honorable conditions.

      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, under honorable conditions discharge 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 issues he 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 evidence of record shows that
command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting
himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of
nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant failed to respond appropriately to
these efforts.  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, the Board does not grant relief
solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment
opportunities.  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: 15 October 2007
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No

Counsel: American Legion
                 ATTN: Mr. Lawrence Provost
                 1608 K Street NW
                 Washington, DC  20006

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 4    No change 1   - 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, hearing his testimony 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.  The Board found that the circumstances surrounding the
applicant's 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.  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: Eric S. Moore, Examiner

X.  Board Action Directed
No Change
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority:

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

Official:


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON            DATE: 30 October 2007
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder