Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071109 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 submitted by the Applicant 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: 941003 Discharge Received: Date: 941031 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: A Company, Medical Center Brigade, Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Aurora, CO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940330, Assault on another soldier (940227), reduction to E2 (suspended), 14 days extra duty (CG) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 920102 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 10Mos, 31Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 10Mos, 31Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 71G10/Patient Administration Spec GT: 96 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM, AAM V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Tampa, FL Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 3 October 1994, 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 in that you received a Company Grade Article 15 for assault upon another soldier (940330), Delinquent Deferrred Payment Notice from AAFES (940418), fitness for duty evaluation (930722), inability to perform the duties (940607), harassing civilian personnel x 2 (940601), leaving her appointed place of duty (940601), and failure to take APFT and weigh-in (940425) with a general under honorable conditions discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge. On 17 October 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. 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, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a fully 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 and the issue she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance. The analyst determined that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of her service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By her unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Therefore, the analyst determined 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: 1 October 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None 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 XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070016123 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages