Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/06/10 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: 000601 Discharge Received: Date: 000708 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: D Btry, 6th Bn, 52nd ADA, APO AE 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: 970606 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 01Mos, 03Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 01Mos, 03Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 14T/Patriot Missile Crewmember GT: 112 EDU: HS GRAD Overseas: Germany, Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Baltimore, MD Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 1 June 2000, 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 failing two consecutive Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) with a honorable discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. On 23 June 2000 , the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a honorable 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 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issue and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant's DD Form 214. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge. The narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Unsatisfactory Performance” and the separation code should be "JHJ." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. The record does not contain sufficient documentation to support the applicant's contention that her weight gain was a result of prescription medications nor that her chain of command did not properly administer her weight control program. However, the record does show that the applicant continued to gain weight and failed two consecutive APFTs, which prompted the unit commander to initiate separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 1 April 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 AR20080009276 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages