Application Receipt Date: 060823 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: 051219 Discharge Received: Date: 060325 Chapter: 5-8 AR: 635-200 Reason: Parenthood RE: SPD: JDG Unit/Location: HHC, 440th Signal Battalion, (Rear Detachment), APO AE 09175 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: 981223 Current ENL Date: 020905 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 06 Mos, 21 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 06 Mos, 21 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 25L10 Cable System Installer/Maintainer GT: 91 EDU: HS Letter Overseas: Germany/SouthWest Asia Combat: Kuwait/Iraq (030800-040300) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, MUC 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: Evidence of record reveals that on 19 December 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5-8, AR 635-200, by reason of parenthood, with a General under honorable conditions discharge. The unit commander indicated that he was initating separation proceedings because the applicant failed to maintain a Family Care Plan. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waived further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a General under honorable conditions discharge. On 27 May 2004, 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 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-8 provides that a Soldier may be separated when parental obligations interfere with fullfillment of military responsibilities. Specific reasons for separation because of parenthood include inability to perform prescribed duties satisfactorily, repeated absenteeism, late for work, inability to participate in field training exercises or perform special duties such as CQ and Staff Duty NCO, and nonavailability for world assignment or deployment according to the needs of the Army. Unless reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier being separated for the convenience of the government will be awarded a characterization of service of honorable, under honorable conditions or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry level status. 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 issues she submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; to include her combat service, and the intermediate commander's recommendation of an honorable characterization of service, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. However, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 29 August 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, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; to include her combat service, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant 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: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 20 September 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060012038 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages