Application Receipt Date: 060609 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: 961217 Discharge Received: Date: 961227 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: Battery B 3rd Bn 29th FA 3RD BCT Fort Carson, CO 80913 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 691208 Current ENL Date: 951005 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02 Mos, 23 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 11Mos, 22 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-930106-951004/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 Supply Spec GT: 98 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, ASR, ALP V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant served in the Indiana Army National Guard, he received numerous awards and was honorably discharged from the National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 June 2000, 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 (consecutive record failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test and failure to qualify on the M-16 range), 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 18 December 1996, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue 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 unsatisfactory performance is not condoned; the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, the time that has elapsed 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 remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 June 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 5 No change 0 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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, while the Board does not condone the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance, it determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board found the circumstances surrounding his discharge; his post service accomplishments, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined 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: 28 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060008228 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages