Applicant Name: 

Application Receipt Date: 070831	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

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

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 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: 950403
Discharge Received:     Date: 950505   
Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance
RE:     SPD: JHJ
Unit/Location: C Btry, 1-3 FA, Fort Hood, TX 76544 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 930910, go from his appointed place of duty while on a field training exercise, and wrongfully left his weapon unsecure, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $407 x 2, extra duty for 45 days and restriction 45 days (FG).

930729, failure to report (930712), and indebted to A &M Enterprises in the sum of $2,031, failed to pay said debt  from (930404-930604), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $233 (suspended), 14 days extra duty and 14 days restriction (CG).

The analyst noted from the Bar to Reenlistment worksheet that the applicant received an Article 15 on (950215), however, that document is not part of the available record. 

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  7203  
HOR City, State: Covington, TN
Current ENL Date: 910129    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  15 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 04  Yrs, 03 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Total Service:  04  Yrs, 03 Mos, 07 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10 Cannon Crewmember   GT: 110   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he is a behavior specialist for
the Killeen independent school district.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 3 April 1995, 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 repetitive failure to meet established standards of performance resulting in multiple Article 15s, 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 12 April 1995, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant was not transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

      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 during the period of enlistment under review 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 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.  Therefore, the analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. 

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 28 August 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: 	       	Proper	 	Improper	
						Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      Change 3    No change 2   - 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 inequitable.  The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service 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.  



















								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: None
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: None

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 9 September 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070012185
______________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 5 pages