Application Receipt Date: 060120 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached supporting documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 940906 Discharge Received: Date: 940920 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: HHC 3/69th Armor FC Fort Stewart, GA 31314 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 641225 Current ENL Date: 940215 Current ENL Term: 2 Years ext 1 month (930316) Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 07 Mos, 06 Days ????? Total Service: 11 Yrs, 00 Mos, 18 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-830902-840530/NA IADT-840531-840803/HD USAR-840804-850527/NA IADT-850528-850823/HD USAR-850829-860817/NA RA-861008-900405/HD RA-900506-940214/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63B20 Light Wheel Veh Mech GT: 116 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (2), AAM (4), AGCM (2), NDSM, NCOPDR w/2, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is currently serving in the United States Army Reserve. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 September 1994, 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 (FTRs, poor motivation, and dereliction of duty), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 12 September 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. A local bar to reenlistment was approved on the applicant (940712). 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 discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. While the applicant's unsatisfactory performance is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the narrative reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061129 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 characterization of service was too harsh and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board found that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 061201 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060001013 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages