Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/06 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See Attached DD From 293 and 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: 981117 Discharge Received: Date: 981230 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: 528th Special Operations Support Battalion (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC. Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 980827, fail to go at the time prescribed, to your appointed place of duty (980819), 0630 accountability formation, extra duty for 14 days (Summarized Article 15) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NA Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 19 Current ENL Date: 970508 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 7Mos, 23Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 7Mos, 23Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92A10 Automated Logistics Spec GT: 109 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 17 November 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 unsucessful progress in the Army Weight Contol Program, failure of two Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) x 2, (980521), ( 980910) and a Summarized Article 15 for failure to go at the time, prescribed to place of duty (980819). He was advised of his rights. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service with an honroarble discharge and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. 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 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 and the issue and documents 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant’s issue; however, 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 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: 29 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 1 No change 4 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080015703 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 pages