Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/08	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document submitted by the applicant.  Wants to rejoin to better herself for her four children, was young and immature.

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: 031218
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 040123   Chapter: 13    AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: HHC/A Co, 3-13 IN Bn, Fort Jackson, SC 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030919, dereliction of duty by willfully failing to look up the forwarding address of Soldiers who had departed the battalion on two occasions (030818 and 030821), reduction to E-2, forfeiture of $301 (suspended), 10 days of extra duty and an oral reprimand (CG)

Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NA

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  22
Current ENL Date: 020625    Current ENL Term: 3 Years  DD Form 214 incorrectly reads 011120
Current ENL Service: 	01 Yrs, 06Mos, 28Days ?????
Total Service:  		02 Yrs, 02Mos, 24Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	IADT 011120-020419/HD
                                       ARNG 011029-NIF
Highest Grade: E-3		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 42A10/ HR Spc   GT: 85   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Elkins Park, PA
Post Service Accomplishments: None listed.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 18 December 2003, 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 an Article 15 for mishandling of mail, duty dereliction, numerous instances of being late for formations, failure to pay just debts, and for receiving numerous traffic citations, with an honorable discharge.  She was advised of her rights.  On 18 December 2003, the applicant waived her right to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable discharge.  On 8 January 2004, 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 Reserve Control Group.

       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 and the issue and documents 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 her 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.  
       
       Furthermore, at the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate.  Further, 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.  
       
       Additionally, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military 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. 
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing

Type of Hearing: 		Date: 24 March 2010         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 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 AR20090010453
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages