Application Receipt Date: 060512 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 920115 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: F Battery 2nd Bn 7th ADA 11th ADA Bde Fort Bliss, TX 79916 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 690123 Current ENL Date: 880916 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 01 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 01 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 16T10 Patroit Missle Crewmember GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA Combat: SWA (900901-9104030) Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, SWASM w/2 BSS, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he has gone to college and completed course work enroute to receiving a Bachelor Degree in Business Management. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions and a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of LHJ (i.e., unsatisfactory performance). Evidence of record shows that on 9 January 1992, Orders 6-39, DA, HQ, U. S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army and assigned him to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement), to complete his military obligation, effective date: 15 January 1992. 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 all the applicant’s available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend 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 his record 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 unsatisfactory performance is not condoned, the analyst found that the length of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, the time that has elasped since his discharge, and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 21 March 2007 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board found that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 26 March 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060006828 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages