Application Receipt Date: 060228 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The mother states, in effect, on behalf of her son, that he passed away unexpectedly on May 31, 2005. The autopsy ruled it death from "natural causes." The findings indicated he had died from having an enlarged heart. The cause for this abdomality could not be found. My son was waiting to do this on the second anniversary of his discharge, but he did not live to do so. Therefore, I am writing on behalf of his wishes to request that his discharge be changed from Under Honorable Conditions (General), to an Honorable discharge. When he was discharged on October 23. 2003, he was told that if he wanted to change the conditions of his discharge he could do so after two years from date of discharge. He was also told that he could reenlist if he felt that he was ready to return. At the time of my son's enlistment, he was recruited right out of college and was not ready for the military life and what was required of him as a soldier. However, since his discharge in 2003 he held down two jobs and intended on doing whatever he needed to do in order to return to the Army and make a career out of it. We learned that he had visited a recruiting office in April 2005 inquiring about his reentry, since the anniversary of his discharge date was approaching. My son did not live long enough to reach his anniversary so he could reenlist. My husband and I ask the Army to please reconsider our son's discharge conditions. Had he lived he would have requested this change himself and he would have reenlisted after doing so. We, thank you for your attention in this matter. 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: 031009 Discharge Received: Date: 031023 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: A Company, 1st Battalion, 13th Aviation Regiment, 1st Aviation Brigade, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5082 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030808, failed to obey a lawful order issued by the Commander, by wrongfully possessing tobacco products while in Initial Entry Training (IET) status (030720); (Company Grade) 2nd Article 15, 030917, unlawfully alter a public record, individual sick slip (DD Form 689), feign a headache and sick stomach (030808); with intent to deceive, made an official statement to a SSG, which was false (030808), and disobeyed a lawful order from a SSG (030815), (Field Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 830925 Current ENL Date: 020211 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 13 Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 13 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: 114 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: See DD Form 293 with attachments VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 3 October 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance (failed to obey orders on many occasions in violation of UCMJ, possessed and used tobacco products, wore earrings on post, which violated the Company SOP and TRADOC Reg, refused to obey orders by not retrieving clothing from his barracks room on two occasions, after being given a direct order from a drill sergeant, made a false statement, altered his sick call slip, by making it read 3 days quarters, had a weapon in his barracks room (knife over 4" long labeled "Fuck DS Pinkney" which perceives a threat to a noncommissioned officer) and continue to perform unsatisfactorily by disobeying lawful orders and failing to abide by rules and regulations), 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, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 21 October 2003, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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, documents and the issue he submitted, 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 evidence of record shows that command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting himself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. The analyst determined that 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 military personnel. By his unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 10 January 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A 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 discharge was both proper and equitable, voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None 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: 12 January 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003141 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 pages