Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/03/31 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed 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: 980831 Discharge Received: Date: 980922 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: HHD, 703d MSB, Ft Stewart, GA 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: 18 Current ENL Date: 970904 Current ENL Term: NIF Years (The ERB indicates the ETS date is effective 010903) Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 0Mos, 18Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 3Mos, 14Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 950609-970903/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92G10/Food Service Specialist GT: 84 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AGCM, NDSM, 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 31 August 1998, 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 failure of two Record APFT 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 submitted 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 11 September 98, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13-2e of this regulation, states in pertinent part, that separation proceedings will be initiated for soldiers without medical limitations who have two consecutive failures of the Army Physical Fitness Test. The reason for discharge will be shown as unsatisfactory performance. Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance for failure of the Army Physical Fitness Test will be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions. 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. Further, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. 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: 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 characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of his service. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 3 No change 2 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 AR20080004792 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages