Applicant Name:   

Application Receipt Date: 2008/02/15	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 960701
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960806   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: A Btry, 1st Bn, 43rd ADA Bde, APO AP 

Time Lost: None Listed

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 960528, AWOL (960328-960405), reduction to PFC, forfeiture of $273 pay per month for one month, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction for 14 days.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  24
Current ENL Date: 940805    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs,  00Mos, 01 Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs,  04Mos, 24Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 920313-940804/HD
                                       
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 16T10/Patriot Missile Crewmember   GT: 117   EDU: HS GRAD   Overseas: Korea   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Plano, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed












VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 1 July 1996, 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 one company grade nonjudicial punishment for an unauthorized absence (960328-960405), and other unfavorable counseling statements,  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 with an honorable discharge and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge.  On 1 July 1996, 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 U.S. Army Reserve Control Group.?????

       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 and the issue 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue about an upgrade after three years of probation, however, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  Additionally, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance", and the separation code is "JHJ."  Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.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: 5 December 2008         Location: Washington, D.C.

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			 
								         Colonel, U.S. Army
X.  Board Action Directed					         President, Army Discharge Review Board
Issue a new DD Form 214  					
Change Characterization to: 			         
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080002715
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages