Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/02/27	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:   NA

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 040412
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040517   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: B Co, 229 MI Bn, Presidio of Monterey, CA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040225, disobeyed a lawful order from a COL on numerous occasions by falling asleep in class, exhibited a disrespectful attitude, made disrespectful statements towards the Korean language and culture, and displayed a general lack of motivation (040206), 14 days restriction and 4 hours of extra duty from 1800-2200, 27-28 February 2004 and 5-6 March 2004 (Summarized).

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030915/OAD    Current ENL Term: 00 Years  100 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 	00 Yrs, 08Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 05Mos, 06Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	ARNG-021223-030914/NA
                                          (Concurrent Service)
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: None   GT: 120   EDU: GED Cert   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Salt Lake City, UT
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 12 April 2004, 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 being counseled for failure to stay awake in class x 2 (040202) and (040205), submitted unprofessional and disrespectful home work (040205), failure to report to class on time (040205), failure to take responsibility for his actions (040205), recommended administrative disenrollment (040206), LOE pending (040211), failure to maintain Army values, attitude, and military bearing (040217), disciplinary actions-sleeping in class, disrespectful attitude, lack of motivation and failure to attend two study hall sessions (040225), rehabilitative transfer (040226), rehabilitation reception and integration counseling (040310), received a Summarized Article 15 (040225), diagnosed with a 301.9, personality disorder not other wise specified (antisocial traits and narcissistic traits) after a week long evaluation (040303), and diagnosed as V65.2, malingering (040310), 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 18 May 2004, 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.  Furthermore, the analyst noted the aplicant's issue; however, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.  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: 3 December 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			 
								         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: None
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080003339
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages