Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/02	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The Applicant states that she was discharged because she could not pass the APFT.  She did have a pattern of misconduct while in the Army but this is not the reason given for her separation.  Her DD Form 214 states Unsatisfactory Job Performance, however her enclosed Common Task Performance results for FY05 show that she had a satisfactory job performance.

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: 060831
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 061013   Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: C Co, Walter Reed AMC, Washington, D.C. 

Time Lost: 7 days, AWOL x 2 (051215-051219 and 051117-051118), mode of return unknown.  Not reflected on the applicant's DD Form 214, however, supported by the record.

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 060113, AWOL (051215-051219), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $300, 14 days extra duty (CG)

051201, AWOL (051117-051118), reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $361 (suspended), 14 days extra duty (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 030612    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  5 months (extension)
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 04Mos, 02Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 04Mos, 02Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 68W10/Health Care Spc   GT: NIF   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Chapel Hill, NC
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 31 August 2006, 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 two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test, for being AWOL x 3 (051215-051219, 051117-051118, and 060309-060309) with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  On 7 September 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge.  On 27 September 2006, 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 the entire applicant’s military records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, 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 the service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.  The analyst noted the Applicant's issue, however, Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13 stipulates that if in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to become a satisfactory soldier and the seriousness of the circumstances is such that the soldier’s retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order, and morale, he may initiate separation proceedings under this chapter.  The record indicates that the applicant had become a disruptive influence by her repeated absences without leave (AWOL) and by her inability to successfully pass the APFT.  These incidents became the circumstances forming the basis for the appropriate initiation of separation proceedings under Chapter 13, AR 635-200, for Unsatisfactory Performance.  The unit commander could have followed the rules for elimination action under Chapter 14 for Misconduct, however, he chose the least severe of the two.  In view of the foregoing, 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 June 2009         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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080013674
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages