Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/13 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: 950222
Discharge Received: Date: 950330 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: HHC, 1-29 IN Regmt, Fort Benning, GA
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 950209, failure to report (950123), and disorderly conduct; reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $199 and extra duty for 14 days (CG).
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 21
Current ENL Date: 940118 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 13Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 45T10 BFVS Turret Mechanic GT: 108 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Farmington Hills, MI
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 22 February 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 being counseled for numerous FTRs, failure to follow orders, and disrespect, 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 20 March 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 applicants 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 applicants discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Armys 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 that the offenses were minor. However, 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 applicants 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. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicants service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 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: 27 May 2009 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 applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts 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 AR20080012856
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3 pages
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090003091
The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, paragraph 12b by reason of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012101
Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: Applicant states, in effect his misconduct was an isolated incident. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicable Army regulation states that there are circumstances in which the conduct or performance of duty...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009847
Applicant Name: ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005404
Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 August 2002, 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 Company Grade Article 15 for violation of Articles 86, 91 UCMJ; receiving verbal and written counseling to improve himself as a Soldier and failed, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003709
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 May 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 being repeatedly counseled for being failing to be at or late to his appointed place of duty, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011579
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 intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general under honorable conditions discharge. 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:...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070018921
Applicant Name: ????? The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, unconditionally waived her right to an administrative separation board, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. On 9 June 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant's waiver of her administrative separation board, waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | ar20060016771
Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 April 2000, 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 failure to pass the APFT after numerous attempts with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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. ...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080006296
It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analysts recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090008591
Applicant Name: ????? The analyst determined that the applicants discharge was appropriate because the quality of the applicant's service at the time of separation was not consistent with the Armys standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE...