Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/02 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: NIF Chapter: 4 AR: 635-200 Reason: Completion of Required Active Service RE: SPD: LBK Unit/Location: HHC 1/325 AIR, Ft Bragg, NC 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: 010518 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 4 Yrs, 02Mos, 07Days ????? Total Service: 4 Yrs, 02Mos, 07Days ????? Previous Discharges: NA Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31U/ Signal Support Systems Specialist GT: 105 EDU: GED Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AGCM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Kingston, PA Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he is in the local College studying to become a History teacher. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant's record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. The record does not include a DD Form 214, however, the record containes a memorandum from Department of the Army, US Human Resources Command, 1 Reserve Way, St. Louis, Missouri 63132 providing an Official Statement of Service, dated 29 October 2008. The Memorandum provides the dates of Active Duty as 010518-050711, the Character of Service, general, under honorable conditions, Reason for Discharge as Completion of Requried Active Service and Reserve Service from 010511-010517. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 4 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals at completion of required service (i.e., expiration term of service). c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the entire applicant’s military records, the issues, and the supporting documents evidence he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. The applicant provided no corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, the record does not support the issue that the applicant suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Finally, 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. 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: 8 July 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: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090007515 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages