Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/07 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: 990226 Chapter: 4 AR: 635-200 Reason: Completion of Required Active Service RE: SPD: MBK Unit/Location: A Co, 58th Trans Bn, Fort Eustis, VA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 23 Current ENL Date: IADT 981019 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 04Mos, 08Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 05Mos, 12Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 980915-991018/NA (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 88M10/Motor Transport GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 19 October 1998, the applicant was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) for the purpose of basic and MOS training at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, until completion of the said training. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was released from active duty training under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-200 by reason of completion of required active service, with service uncharacterized. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of MBK (i.e., completion of required active service). Following completion of MOS training course, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred back to the U.S. Army Reserve. The record further indicates that on 20 December 1999, Orders 99-354-004, DA, HQ, 99th RSC, Oakdale, PA, reassigned the applicant from his current assignment to the USAR Control Group for Unsatisfactory Participation, effective 18 October 1999. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 4 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals at completion of required service (i.e., expiration term of service). c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issue, and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend that relief be denied in this case. The evidence of record shows that the applicant, while in entry-level status, was released from active duty for training under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 635-200, by reason of completion of required active service, with service uncharacterized. The characterization of service for Soldiers separated under this provision of the regulation will normally be honorable, unless the Soldier is in entry-level status. A Soldier is in entry-level status for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when separated in entry-level status. For ARNG and USAR Soldiers ordered to IADT/ADT, entry-level status terminates 180 days after the beginning of training. Furthermore, for Soldiers in entry-level status, a general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized. Additionally, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. In view of the aforementioned, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 22 January 2009 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 AR20080003735 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages