Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/18	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: 960318
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 960328   Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: B Co, 14th Eng Bn, Ft. Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None in the record of evidence; however, the unit commander 's initiation of separation action states the Applicant received a Company Grade Article 15 on 21 July 1995 for two specifications of FTR and for disobeying a direct order from a NCO.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 950202    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service:  		01 Yrs, 01 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 62E  Hvy Contsr Eq Op   GT: 102   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Big Clifty, KY
Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 18 March 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 having received a Company Grade Article 15 on 21 July 1995 for two specifications of FTR and for disobeying a direct order from a NCO and for having been counseled numerous times for various other offenses, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The Applicant was advised of his rights, 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.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge.  On 18 March 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 transferred to the U.S. Army Individual Ready Reserve to complete the remainder of his statutory military obligation.

       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 Applicant’s military records and the issue 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, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command.  The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and noted the Applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review.  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: 2 September 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 a careful review of the Applicant’s military records and the issue 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.  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.







        
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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080018967
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages