Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states that his discharge from the Army was a result of his addiction to alcohol. He says he has been sober now since October 2006 and is trying to get a job with the Atlanta Police Department. 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: 960526 Discharge Received: Date: 940627 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: HHC, 13th Signal Bn, 1st Cavalry DIV, Fort Hood, TX Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940429, did at Fort Hood on or about March 1994 wrongfully use marijuana, reduction to Private E-2, forfeiture of $100 pay for two months, suspended, to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 941029, 45 days restriction and 45 days extra duty (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 19 Current ENL Date: 920515 Current ENL Term: 2 Years 21 weeks Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 01Mos, 13Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 01Mos, 13Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92A10/Automated Logistical Specialist GT: 96 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Louisville, KY Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 26 May 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 for being repeatedly counseled for being failing to be at or late to his appointed place of duty, 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 did not submit a statement in his 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 7 June 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 submitted with the application, 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 the service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. The analyst noted the applicant's issue; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. 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: 19 December 2008 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 X. Board Action Directed 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080003709 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages