Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/04/18 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached document 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: 080307 Chapter: 7 AR: 635-200 Reason: Defective Enlistment Agreement RE: SPD: KDS Unit/Location: B Co, 264th Trainee MC, Fort Sam Houston, TX Time Lost: None 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: 19 Current ENL Date: 070815 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 06Mos, 23Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 06Mos, 23Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: NIF EDU: 12 Years Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Kansas City, KS Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant's discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. Her DD Form 214 indicates that she was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 7, Section III, AR 635-200, by reason of defective enlistment agreement, with service uncharacterized. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KDS (i.e., defective enlistment agreement), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "1." b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, Section III, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that an unfulfilled enlistment commitment exists when the Soldier receives a written enlistment commitment for which the Soldier is qualified but which cannot be fulfilled by the Army through no fault of the Soldier. Soldiers separated under this chapter may be awarded an honorable discharge unless an entry level status separation is required under chapter 3, section II. 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 issues and document she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant, while in entry-level status, was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Section III, by reason of defective enlistment agreement, 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. A fully honorable discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions. A fully honorable discharge may be granted only in cases which are clearly warranted by unusual circumstances involving outstanding personal conduct and/or performance of duty. The analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and her service did not warrant an honorable discharge. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant issues; however, did not find said issues sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge 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 February 2009 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 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: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080005977 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages