Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 070910	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant 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?	     
Tender Offer:   No

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 941016
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 941028   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: HHC, 4-8 IN, Fort Lewis, WA 98433 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940429, without authority go from appointed place of duty (940212), the punishment is not annotated in block 4 of DA Form 2627, Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ (CG).  

940103, the applicant was reduced to E-2 (suspended), however, the document is not part of the available record (CG).

0429, suspension of punishment of reduction to E-2, was vacated for without authority go from appointed place of duty (940212), UCMJ action was executed after the end of suspension date.

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  26
Current ENL Date: 911029    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 00Mos, 00Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 94B10 Food Service Spec   GT: 101   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Spanish Lake, MO
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 3 October 1994, 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 consistent poor performance, apparent inability to adapt to military life, his persistent disrespect and disobedience, on several occasions which he either left his place of duty, did not return, or refused to report for duty.  The applicant was late in reporting for duty; late for PT formations or did not show up at all; operating a motor vehicle without a license and cited for speeding, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.   On 16 October 1994, 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 warrant 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue, even though the applicant claims that his offense was isolated, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  Additionally, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Finally, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 10 September 2008         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA

VIII.  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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.  





        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
								         EDGAR J. YANGER			 
Issue a new DD Form 214  					         Colonel, U.S. Army
Change Characterization to: 			         President, Army Discharge Review Board 
Change Reason to:  
Other: NA										
RE Code: 									 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: None 
       	
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070012592
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages