Applicant Name: ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070724	

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: 931214
Discharge Received:     Date: 940114   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: A Btry, 6/9th FA, APO AE 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 930728, Disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and disrespect towards two noncommissioned officers, 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty, Summarized Article 15.

931004, Failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (930917) and disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer (930917), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $213.00 pay per month for one month (suspended), 14 days restriction and 14 extra duty, (CG).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  1971/06  
HOR City, State: Melbourne, FL
Current ENL Date: 910624    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 06Mos, 21Days ?????
Total Service:  02 Yrs, 06Mos, 21Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13M10/MLRS CRMBR   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR,

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: See attached documents submitted by the applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 14 December 1993, 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 receiving a  Summarized Article 15 (930728) for disrespecting and disobeying a noncommissioned officer; a Company Grade Article 15 (931004), for FTR and disobeying a noncommissioned officer; being charged (931125) by the Kaisserslautern Military Police with fleeing the scene of an accident and operating a POV without a valid USAREUR License; and having little or no initiative, leadership, or the desire to perform his job in a satisfactory manner, 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 20 December 1993, 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:  
      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, however, a fully 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, documents, and the issues 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable.  While the applicant's unsatisfactory performance is not condoned, the analyst found that the length of the applicant's service and his post service accomplishments, 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: 23 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 was too harsh and as a result, it is now inequitable.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable .  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: 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: 25 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010405
______________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 5 pages