Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019094
Original file (AR20080019094.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2008/11/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 submitted in lieu of 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: Undated
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 990515   Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: 214th Aviation CO, Unit # 29231, APO AE  09102 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 950125    Current ENL Term: 06 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	04 Yrs, 04 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Total Service:  		04 Yrs, 04 Mos, 06 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 67T  UH-60 Hel Repr   GT: 122   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, Bosnia   Combat: Bosnia (980410-981030)
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFSM, ASR, OSR, NM, ASUA; AGCM (not annotated on the Applicant's DD Form 214)

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Yelm, WA
Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant joined the VA ARNG and received an Honorable discharge (020930-030929).

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 9 March 1999, 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 been counseled for: notification of debt collection (990223), failure to pay a debt (981216), bar to reenlistment (981103), missing formation (981015), did not use chain of command (981022), dishonored checks and financial indebtedness (980831), failure to make payments on DPP account (980826), unsatisfactory performance, dishonored checks, and suspension of check cashing privileges (980805), not participating in barracks clean up (980722), improper maintenance procedures (980601) and unsatisfactory performance (980503), 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 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 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, 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 acknowledges the Applicant's successful reenlistment into the Virginia Army National Guard; however, in review of the Applicant’s service record leading to his discharge, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted.  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: 4 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 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: No Change										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: No Change
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20080019094
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080007511

    Original file (AR20080007511.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. 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 characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable based on the length of the applicant’s his...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080019299

    Original file (AR20080019299.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070012185

    Original file (AR20070012185.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 3 April 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 repetitive failure to meet established standards of performance resulting in multiple Article 15s, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | AR20110022632

    Original file (AR20110022632.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 November 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 failing four consecutive map reading examinations which was a requirement for graduation, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 15 November 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed that the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120008169

    Original file (AR20120008169.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: Records show the applicant served in the Army National Guard (031119-070116) with a characterization of service of honorable. Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Online application, dated 16 April 2012, Orders, dated 14 February 2002, Amended Orders, dated 5 March 2002, DA Form 2-1, dated 29 June 2001, Enlisted Record Brief, Discharge Order, dated 18 January 2007; Army National Guard Retirement Points, dated...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060014939

    Original file (AR20060014939.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 7 March 1997, 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 writing checks without sufficient funds, for failure to pay debts, and for failure to report, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. On 9 July 1997, the separation authority notified the applicant that he was initiating action to vacate...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013373

    Original file (AR20060013373.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: Applicant states he received a general discharge because he lost his security clearance one year before the chapter was initiated. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 8 February 2001, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, for having lost his security clearance with a...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100030084

    Original file (AR20100030084.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 17 December 2001, 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 in that he was counseled on numerous occasions for failing the Army Physical Fitness Tests, unsatisfactory performance and lack of motivation, failing to be at his appointed place of duty, failing to manage his finances and to...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060015429

    Original file (AR20060015429.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 21 July 1998, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090007709

    Original file (AR20090007709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, paragraph 13-2, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance for failing to provide financial support to his spouse, resulting in a Congressional Inquiry; failing to report to his place of duty on several occasions; failing the Army Physical Fitness Test; and failing to make progress while...