Application Receipt Date: 060222 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 960401 Discharge Received: Date: 960422 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: P Troop, 4th Squadron, 3d Amored Calvary Regiment, Fort Carson, CO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 950825/Summarized Article 15/FTR/Restriction for 8 days, extra duty for 8 days. The applicant received an Article 15 on 951103, however, it is not contained in the available records. 951201/Vacation of Suspension for Article 15 received on 951103, (Reduction to the grade of private E2 and forfeiture of $223.00), applicant failed to go to his appointed place of duty on 951106. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 721218 Current ENL Date: 921104 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 19Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 19Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 67V10 (Observation Scout Helicopter Repairer) GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 April 1996, 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 (several failures to report, and making false official statements), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 12 April 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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 discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the applicant’s military records during the period of enlistment under review and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the overall length of the applicant's service and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061220 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the Board found that the applicant's overall length and quality of service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. This action does entail a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1". Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Secretarial Authority under Chapter 5, AR 635-200. Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 061221 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060002644 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages