Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2011/05/18	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, "I have submitted a DD 293 requesting an upgrade to the narrative regarding my discharge. My discharge, which was effective on 6 June, 2005, was based on a irresponsible judgment decision that I had made; I was engaged in an inappropriate relationship which is in violation of AR 600-20, Army Command Policy.

The narrative on my DD-214 currently reads “Unsatisfactory Performance”.  I have enclosed Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports that I have received from my superiors to justify that my performance was never questioned while I was in service.

The reason I am requesting this change is so that I may reenter the military service and finish my commitment.  I have been in contact with a US Army recruiter and have already taken the necessary steps to reenlist.  I have already taken and passed my physical and all necessary documentation has been submitted. The only thing keeping me from swearing into service is the narrative that is currently on my DD 214.

Since I was discharged, I have continued to do the right thing and make the right decisions.  Four months after my discharge, I worked for a defense contracting company and worked overseas in Iraq for 2 1/2 years in support of our military forces as a government contractor. Upon returning to the states, I worked as a Human Resources Manager/Recruiter for a direct sales company.  I held that position for 2 years but had to resign due to the fact that the income was commission-based.  Within 2 months, I was hired by a private warehouse as a Logistical Packaging Specialist.  I have currently been with this company for 10 months.

I am also enrolled in school on a part-time basis. I earned my Associates Degree while I was in the Army and always wanted to complete my education.  I am currently taking classes at Kean University, Union, New Jersey, to earn my Bachelors of Science in Biology.

The military was the best decision I had ever made in my life.  It taught me many values that I would have never learned on my own.  I hate that one wrong decision would keep me from fulfilling a dream.  
Again, I am requesting that the narrative be changed so that I may be allowed to reenter military service and fulfill a life-long dream."

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: 050316
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 050606   Chapter: 13     AR: 635-200
Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance	   RE:     SPD: JHJ   Unit/Location: Headquarters and A Company, 82d Forward Support Battalion, Division Support Command, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC
 

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:  33
Current ENL Date: 040924    Current ENL Term: Indefinite Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	0   Yrs, 8  Mos, 12 Days ?????
Total Service:  		13 Yrs, 0  Mos, 25 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	RA 920512 - 950109/HD
                                       RA 950110 - 970127/HD
                                       RA 970128 - 010319/HD
                                       RA 010320 - 040923/HD
Highest Grade: E-6		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 92A3P Automated Logistics Specialist   GT: 114   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ARCOM x 3, AAM x 5, JMUA, VUA, AGCM x 4, NDSM x 2, AFEM x 2, KCM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, KDSM, HSM, NPDR x 2, ASR, UNM, NAM, CIB

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
City, State:  ?????
Post Service Accomplishments: None

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence of record shows that on 16 March 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  being involved in an investigation for fraternization and adultery and as a result would not be considered for future leadership of Soldiers, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  
       
       On 16 March 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  
       
       On 27 April 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.  The applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group.
       
       The record contains a letter of reprimand dated, 9 January 2004.

       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 applicant’s entire military records the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which 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 the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service.  
       
       The applicant requests that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 with a honorable discharge.  The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance", and the separation code is "JHJ."  Army Regulation 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 and separation code, entered in block 26 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.  There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.  

             At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of “3.”  If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should continue to work with 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.  
       
       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: 20 December 2011         Location: Washington, D. C.

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: None 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 with a self-authored statement, the first page of 2 evaluations and a DD Form 214

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 NA    No change NA
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: NA

Official:




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder


























Legend:
AWOL    	Absent Without Leave		GCM   General Court Martial	NA   Not applicable			SCM	Summary Court Martial
BCD   	Bad Conduct Discharge	GD      General Discharge	NIF   Not in the file			SPCM	Special Court Martial
CG 	Company Grade Article 15	HD      Honorable Discharge	OAD   Ordered to Active Duty		UNC	Uncharacterized Discharge  
DD 	Dishonorable Discharge	HS       High School Graduate	OMPF   Official Military Personnel File	UOTH  	Under Other Than Honorable 
FG	Field Grade Article 15		IADT   Initial Active Duty Training	RE     Reentry Code				Conditions 

ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20110010657
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 1 of 4 pages