Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070712	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant.

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: 940531
Discharge Received:     Date: 940926   
Chapter: 8-26o    AR: NGR 600-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: NA
Unit/Location: HHC (-Det 1), 29th ID, Fort Belvoir, VA 

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
Year/Month:  6401  
HOR City, State: Sterling, VA
Current ENL Date: 910329    Current ENL Term: 8 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 03  Yrs, 05 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  03  Yrs, 10 Mos, 10 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: ADT-910530-911011/UNC
                                         (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 91B10 Medical Spec   GT: 117   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 31 May 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 8, NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-260 (5), by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failure of two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) (931107) and 940514), with an honorable discharge. She was advised of her rights.  On 19 September 1994, the Judge Advocate stated in his memorandum that this action meets the requirements of AR 135-178 and is legally sufficient.  The applicant was advised of the unit commander's recommendation for discharge in a letter dated 31 May 1994.  On 3 June 1994, the letter was received by the applicant and failed to invoke her rights in regard to the separation action, which constituted a waiver of her rights under AR 135-178.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 20 September 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and Army Regulation 135-178 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel of the Army National Guard.  Chapter 8-26o of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel.  Army Regulation 135-178 provides for the separation of members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve when it is determined that a service member is unqualified for further military service by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The service of a member separated under this provision of Army Regulation 135-178 will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions as warranted by his or her military record.
      
      
      
      
      
      
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents she submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable.  There was a full consideration of all 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  While  the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance is not condoned, the analyst noted that the applicant was discharged for the sole reason of a failure to meet the minimum standards of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  The analyst also noted the lack of any other derogatory information in the record, the unit commander's recommendation for an honorable discharge and the time that has elapsed since her discharge.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant's discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.  However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable.   

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 16 July 2008              
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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board determined that the length of the applicant’s service; the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and the time that has elapsed since her discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in her 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.    



















								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: Thru:  Chief, National Guard Bureau          Date: 16 July 2008
                                  To:  Adjutant General, State of Virginia

            The Army Discharge Review Board, established under the provisions of Section 30, Public Law 346, 78th Congress, 22 June 1944 and codified as Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, in the case of the applicant named in Part I recommends that the applicant be considered for a change of his authority and reason by the Adjutant General, State of Virginia, with issuance of a new NGB Form 22A, as follows:
                  
           ( X )  Change characterization of service to fully Honorable.
           
Remarks:  This action entails a change to the applicant’s discharge from the Reserve of the Army to reflect a characterization of service of fully Honorable.  ARBA Support Division-St. Louis, is directed to insure that the applicant’s discharge from the Reserve of the Army reflects the aforementioned change. 
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: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 18 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070009661
______________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 5 pages