Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/05/18	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: 981002
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 981104   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: HHC, USAG, Fort Polk, LA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980519, Disrespectful in deportment towards a noncommissioned officer (1SG) (980514), 14 days extra duty, Summarized Article 15.

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  18
Current ENL Date: 960830    Current ENL Term: 04 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	02 Yrs, 02Mos, 05Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 02Mos, 05Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 71D10/Legal Specialist   GT: 107   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  McAllen, TX
Post Service Accomplishments: Records show that the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard (010130) for a period of 5 years and extended her enlistment 2 years (021115) giving her a ETS date of (081125).  The applicant served on active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (031207-050401), with duty in Kuwait (040214-050227).  During her period of service she was awarded the NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, and AFRM (w/M Device).  The applicant was honorably discharged.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 2 October 1998, 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 record APFTs (970827, 971009, 980610, and 980826); FTR (971201 and 980728); failing to maintain her barracks room up to unit standards (980129); uttering a worthless check (980501); receiving a Summarized Article 15 for being disrespectful in deportment towards a senior noncommissioned officer; failing to obey an order from an noncommissioned officer (980609); failing to follow instructions (980621); misleading her commanding officer; wrongfully giving out information regarding an Article 15 to another Soldier (980720); and leaving court-martial evidence unattended (980811), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       She was advised of her rights.  On 5 October 1998, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  On 21 October 1998, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 

       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 all the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review, the documents, and the issues 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 applicant's service at the time of separation 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 her service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.
       
       The applicant contends her discharge was due to failing her APFT twice.  However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct, expected of Soldiers in the Army.  Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  
       
       Further, the analyst acknowledges the applicant's issue that she was diagonsed with rheumatoid arthritis and that she is currently receiving VA Disability for Degenerative Arthritis.  However, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.
       
       The applicant is to be commended for her post service accomplishments in the Army National Guard.  However, in review of the applicant’s entire prior service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted at the time of discharge.
       
       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: 31 March 2010         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 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 2    No change 3
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 AR20090008591
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages