Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/12/04 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 060111 Chapter: NIF AR: 135-178 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: HQ, 63rd Regional Readiness Command, Los Alamitos, CA Time Lost: NIF 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: 22 Current ENL Date: 030326 Current ENL Term: 08 Years USAR Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 16 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 09 Mos, 16 Days ????? Previous Discharges: IADT 030508-031123/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31U / Signal Spt Sys Spec GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Los Angeles, CA Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the Applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the United States Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 11 January 2006, Department of the Army, Headquarters, 63rd Regional Readiness Command, Los Alamitos, CA, Orders 06-011-00015, discharged the Applicant from the United States Army Reserve, effective 11 January 2006, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the United States Army Reserve. 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 as to the propriety of the discharge, the analyst determined that the Applicant’s available record of service during the period under review as a U.S. Army Reserve Soldier is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army Reserve. However, the Applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted Order which identifies the characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. Barring evidence to the contrary, 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. The Applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the Applicant’s service mitigated the type of discharge he received from the U.S. Army Reserve. The analyst noted the Applicant's issue, however, the record does not support the Applicant’s contention that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Additionally, because the analyst determined that the Applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army, if the Applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. 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: 16 September 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 AR20090000486 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages