Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2009/06/05	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: Applicant states he suffers from PTSD and that he was young and immature.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?	     
Tender Offer:   N/A

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: 	   Date: 050121
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050208   Chapter: 13       AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: B Btry, 2-3 FA Bn  APO AE 09169 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040311 - (Art 15 not legible in file) - larceny of another solder's digital camera; reduction to E4, forfeiture of pay for two months and extra duty and restriction for 45 days. (FG)

021126 - on or about 3 October 2002, dereliction of duty by failing to properly secure his assigned weapon, to wit: M16A2, on or about 4 October 2002, with intent to deceive, make to an NCO, an official statement, to wit:  that you had your weapon, which was false in that you did not have your weapon, and then known by you to be so false, on or about  4 October 2002, with intent to deceive, make to an NCO, an official statement, to wit: that you had mistakenly picked up another soldier's weapon and had returned it to him in the morning once you realized that you had the wrong weapon, which was false in that you never had his weapon in your possession and was known by you to be false; reduction to the grade of E3, suspended to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 24 February 2003, forfeiture of $323.00 for one month, extra duty and restriction for 14 days. (CG)

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  20
Current ENL Date: 020808    Current ENL Term: 5 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	2 Yrs, 6Mos, 0Days ?????
Total Service:  		4 Yrs, 6Mos, 22Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 000717-020807/HD (Immediate Reenlistment) 
Highest Grade: E5		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember   GT: 96   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Germany, SWA   Combat: Iraq (030511-040717)
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, GWOTEM, GWOTSM 

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  Torrence, CA
Post Service Accomplishments: None provided by the applicant


.

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 21 January 2005, 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 a company grade Article 15 (021126) for  making two false official statements on the whereabouts of his weapon and failing to secure his weapon; a field grade Article 15 (040311) for larceny; and for being disrespectful  to a noncommissioned officer and failing to be at his appointed place of duty, with an honorable discharge.  
       
       He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and although elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, his statement is not contained in the record.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with an honorable discharge.  
       
       On 1 February 2005, 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 the entire 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 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.  
       
       Furthermore, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or any other medical issues and no evidence to support them has been submitted by the applicant that the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  
       
       Further, 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:  3 May 2010         Location: Washington, D.C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 149.

VIII.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, hearing his testimony 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: NA
Other: NA										
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20090010577
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 3 pages