Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/02/17	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: 080206
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 080828   Chapter: 4-2a      AR: 600-8-24
Reason: Substandard Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHK   Unit/Location: 703rd Bde Supt Bn, 4th BCT, 3rd Inf Div (Rear)(Provisional), Fort Stewart, GA 

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:  26
Current ENL Date: 020611    Current ENL Term: Indef Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	06 Yrs, 02Mos, 18Days ?????
Total Service:  		14 Yrs, 02Mos, 12Days ?????
Previous Discharges. RA 000222-020610/HD
                                      RA 940616-000221/HD
Highest Grade: CW2		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 251A/Information Systems Technician   GT: NA   EDU: 2 Yrs College   Overseas: SWA, Korea   Combat: Iraq x2 (030227-040226, 050921-060721)
Decorations/Awards: BSM (2), MSM, ARCOM (2), AAM, ASUA, AGCM (2), NDSM (2), GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICM W/CS, NCOPDR (2), ASR, OSR (3)

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments. None listed by the applicant.











VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 28 February 2008, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, paragraph 4-2a(16), AR 600-8-24, by reason of failure to establish an adequate family care plan, which made her unavailable for worldwide deployment.  The applicant was directed to show cause for her retention in the Army after failure to comply with the requirement to establish a family care plan.  She was advised that she could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal. On 3 April 2008, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the elimination action.  On 5 June 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, and submitted her resignation with the understanding that she would receive an Honorable Discharge.  She waived her right to appear before a Board of Officers (BOI) contingent upon receiving a characterization of service not less favorable than Honorable, and did submit a statement in her own behalf.  The chain of command recommended separation with a Honorable Discharge.  The Department of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board did not review the case due to the applicant’s acceptance of a Honorable Discharge. On 14 August 2008, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Commander, 3rd Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of Honorable.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for officer transfers and discharges.  Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for eliminating an officer from the Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security.  AR 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes.  The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
              After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, the issues, and the supporting documents evidence she submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change to the narrative reason of  the discharge under review.  The analyst noted the applicant’s issue; however, determined the discharge was appropriate because, being provided sufficient time, she failed to meet Army's standards of duty by Army Officers due to her inability to provide an adequate Family Support Plan.  The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated a requirement expected of all deployable Soldiers.  Furthermore, 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.   Therefore, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable.   
       


















VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 19 October 2009         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: None

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
The Board carefully examined the applicant’s records for the term of service under review and heard her testimony.  There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the discharge is inequitable.  The Board determined that the applicant provided clarifying testimony regarding the facts and circumstances leading to her discharge.  Based on this evidence the Board found that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by the circumstances surrounding her discharge, that being, the applicant had requested a hardship discharge due to a family situation.  The Board concluded that the applicant's request was never acted upon.  Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Hardship with a corresponding separation code (SPD) of MDB.  
        
IX.  Board Decision						
	XI.  Certification Signature
Board Vote:  							          Approval Authority:	
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 5    No change 0
(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: Hardship
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090006383
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages