Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080924 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 071108 Discharge Received: Date: 071121 Chapter: 7, Sec III AR: 635-200 Reason: Defective Enlistment Agreement RE: SPD: KDS Unit/Location: HQ, 3d Bn (OCS), 11th Inf Regiment, Ft. Benning, 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: 32 Current ENL Date: 070626 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 04 Mos, 26 Days ????? Total Service: 00 Yrs, 04 Mos, 26 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 09S10 Comm Off Candidate GT: 130 EDU: Masters Degree Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Pittsburgh, PA Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the Applicant enlisted in the Army as a Specialist/E4 to attend Officer Candidate School. On 3 October 2007, the unit commander notified the Applicant of disenrollment from officer candidate training due to medical reasons, through no fault of her own, which would prevent her from completion of the course. On 31 October 2007, the unit commander notified the Applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 7, paragraph 7-16e, AR 635-200, by reason of inability of the U.S. Army to fulfill the former Soldier’s enlistment agreement. On 5 November 2007, the Applicant requested to be separated under Chapter 7-16, Unfulfilled Service Agreement. On 6 November 2007, counsel reviewed the chapter action and determined it to be legally sufficient. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Paragraph 7-16e, for Defective or Unfulfilled Enlistment Agreement. On 9 November 2007, the separation authority directed that the Applicant be discharged with an uncharacterized characterization of service. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, Paragraph 7-16b, 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 the Applicant’s military records, and the issue she submitted, to include her supporting documents, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the Applicant's discharge. The Applicant’s service was uncharacterized because she was in entry-level status. A Soldier is in entry-level status (ELS) for the first 180 days of continuous active duty. The purpose of the entry-level status is to provide the Soldier a probationary period. Army Regulation 635-200 also provides, except in cases of serious misconduct, that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when her separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. An honorable, or general, under honorable conditions discharge is not authorized under ELS conditions. Furthermore, for Soldiers in entry-level status, 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 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. Therefore, the analyst recommends to the Board that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service are both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 15 July 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080015027 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages