Applicant Name:  ?????

Application Receipt Date: 2012/02/21	Prior Review:     Prior Review Date: NA     

I.  Applicant Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged due to miscommunication between her and her unit of assignment and believes she should not have been discharged.

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: NIF
Discharge Received: 			   Date: 101022   Chapter: NIF      AR: 135-178
Reason: NIF	   RE:     SPD: NIF   Unit/Location: A Co, 228th MC HSP, Fort Sam Houston, TX 

Time Lost: NIF

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF

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

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Age at current enlistment:  19
Current ENL Date: 061130    Current ENL Term: 08 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 	03 Yrs, 10  Mos, 23  Days ?????
Total Service:  		03 Yrs, 10  Mos, 23  Days ?????
Previous Discharges: 	None
Highest Grade: E4		Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: NIF   GT: NIF   EDU: 13 Yrs   Overseas: None   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NIF

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















VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

       a.  Facts and Circumstances:
       The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve.  The record indicates that on 15 October 2010, DA HQS, 63d Regional Support Command, Moffett Field, CA, Orders Number 10-288-00025, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 22 October 2010, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
       
       The record contains a properly constituted Order, which indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178.  The reason for the applicant’s discharge is not contained in the available record.

       b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
       Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The separation policies throughout the different Chapters in this regulation promote the readiness of the Army by providing an orderly means to judge the suitability of persons to serve on the basis of their conduct and their ability to meet required standards of duty performance and discipline.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, and convictions by civil authorities.  The characterization is based upon the quality of the Soldier’s service, including the reason for separation and determined in accordance with standards of acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty as found in the UCMJ, Army Regulations, and the time-honored customs and traditions of the Army.  The reasons for separation, including the specific circumstances that form the basis for the discharge are considered on the issue of characterization.  Possible characterizations of service include an honorable, general, under honorable conditions, under other than honorable conditions, or uncharacterized, if the Soldier is in entry-level status.  However, the permissible range of characterization varies based on the reason for separation.

       c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
       After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue, and the documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors which would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  
       
       The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the former Soldier’s discharge from the Army.  However, the record shows that on 15 October 2010, DA HQS, 63d Regional Support Command, Moffett Field, CA, Orders Number 10-288-00025, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 22 October 2010, with a general under honorable conditions discharge.  All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process.
       
       There is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination upon the applicant's quality of service.  Moreover, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  This presumption is applied in all Army discharge reviews unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced any evidence, to support a change to the characterization of service granted.  
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       If a personal appearance hearing is desired, it is the applicant’s responsibility to meet the burden of proof since the evidence is not available in the official record.  The burden of proof remains with the applicant to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence (i.e., discharge packet) sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board's consideration.
       
       Therefore, based on the available evidence, the analyst presumes government regularity in the discharge process and concludes that it appears 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 August 2012         Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, E-Mail Documents, dated 15 March 2010 (2), 25 May 2010 (2), 26 May 2010,    19 July 2010 (5), 8 March 2011, Memorandum, dated 31 March 2009, Record of Individual Performance of Reserve Duty Training, dated 18 July 2010, Request for Reserve Component Assignment or Attachment, dated 2 March 2010, Development Counseling Form, dated 2 March 2010, and Discharge Orders, dated 15 October 2010.

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						
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0    No change 5
Reason -     Change 0    No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)

X.  Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to: 
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code: 
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes   Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature
Approval Authority:




ARCHIE L. DAVIS III
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board




BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
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 AR20120003846
______________________________________________________________________________


Page 4 of 4 pages