Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090005404
Original file (AR20090005404.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/24	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 149 and attached documents submitted by the applicant in lieu of DD Form 293.

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: 020826
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 021018   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: 535th EN Co, APO AE 09114 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020515, failure to report (020417), and willfully disobey a lawful order from a SFC (020417); reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $257 pay x 1 month, and extra duty for 14 days (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: 000406    Current ENL Term: 4 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 06Mos, 13Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 06Mos, 13Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E-2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 62J10 General Construction Equipment Repairer    GT: 108   EDU: GED   Overseas: Germany   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Linton, IN
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  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.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant waived 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 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, the issues and documents 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 applicant'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.  Further, 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.  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: 22 December 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 applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review 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 AR20090005404
______________________________________________________________________________

Page 1 of 3 pages

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014525

    Original file (AR20080014525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080002728

    Original file (AR20080002728.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 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—for Commission of a Serious Offense in that the soldier has been charged with criminal offenses off-post including domestic violence, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060016808

    Original file (AR20060016808.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. 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. 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.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080014125

    Original file (AR20080014125.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 12 June 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct- commission of a serious offense for testing positive for a controlled substance "Cocaine" on (070212), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090015231

    Original file (AR20090015231.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for a discharge for the good of the Service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080012856

    Original file (AR20080012856.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? 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. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080003709

    Original file (AR20080003709.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2007 | AR20070015159

    Original file (AR20070015159.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    At the time of release from active duty training, the applicant had completed 6 months and 13 days of active military service in the period 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. (2) In the course of the review of the applicant’s military records and the issue she submitted, the analyst determined that the applicant's characterization of service...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | ar20060016771

    Original file (ar20060016771.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | AR20060009448

    Original file (AR20060009448.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 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...