Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/10/20 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: 060916 Chapter: 13 AR: 135-178 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: NA Unit/Location: 485th Quartermaster Company, Chickasha, OK 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: 030109 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 08Mos, 08Days ????? Total Service: 3 Yrs, 08Mos, 08Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 030109-040102/NA RA 040102-050301/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77W20 Water Treatment SP GT: NIF EDU: GED Overseas: SWA Combat: Iraq (040217-050203) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, AFRM, GWOTSM, GWOTEM, CAB V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Lawton, OK Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that she is currently attending advanced schooling to earn her Bachelor’s Degree. 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 her discharge from the Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 19 September 2006, DA HQS, 90th Regional Readiness Command, North Little Rock, AR, Orders number 06-262-0007, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 16 Septembert 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The record contains a properly constituted Order which indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 13, AR 135-178, by reason of unsatisfactory participation, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Additionally, on 16 September 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to E1. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-178 governs procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the USAR. Paragraph 13-1 of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, 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. On 19 September 2006, DA HQS, 90th Regional Readiness Command, North Little Rock, AR, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 16 September 2006, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. 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. Further, 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 remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 25 February 2010 Location: Dallas, TX 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090018187 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 pages