Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071127 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 060511 Chapter: 13 AR: 135-178 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation In The Ready Reserve RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: HSC (-), 463rd Engr Bn, Wheeling, WV Time Lost: NIF Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 990205 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 13Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 00Mos, 13Days ????? Previous Discharges: ADT-990914-000217/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 38A10 Civil Affairs Spec GT: 122 EDU: 3 Years College Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Cherry Hill, NJ Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed 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 her discharge from the United States Army Reserve. However, the evidence of record shows that on 11 May 2006, DA, HQ, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, Orders 06-131-00003, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective date: 9 June 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The analyst noted that it appears that the applicant was reduced from "E-4" to "E-3." However, the document that reduced the applicant is not part of the available record. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 (Separation of Enlisted Personnel) provides for the separation of enlisted personnel of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. Chapter 13, paragraph 13-1 of the regulation, ineffect at the time, governed separation of unsatisfactory participation in the ready reserve. When discharged under this provision, Army policy states that the characterization of service will normally be under other than honorable conditions. The regulation also permitted the characterization of service as general, under honorable conditions. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the United States Army Reserve. However, on 11 May 2006, DA, HQ, 99th Regional Readiness Command, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, Orders 06-131-00003, discharged the applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective date: 9 June 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. This document identifies the characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. Barring evidence to the contrary, 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. The analyst noted the applicant’s contentions; however, the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. Furthermore, the analyst determined that the applicant had many legitimate avenues through which to obtain assistance or relief, without committing the misconduct, which led to the separation action under review. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 10 October 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070017649 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages