Application Receipt Date: 060315 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. 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: 900517 Discharge Received: Date: 910607 Chapter: 16-5b AR: 635-200 Reason: Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment RE: SPD: KGF Unit/Location: Company E, 3d Battalion, 325th Infantry ABCT, Vicenza, Italy APO 09221-5196 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 910220-disobeyed a lawful command from a CPT on (910123); dereliction of duties, in that he failed to post the guards at 0200 on (910122); Company Grade. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 620702 Current ENL Date: Reenl/891121 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 6 Mos, 17 Days ????? Total Service: 11 Yrs, 8 Mos, 26 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-800226-821227/HD RA-821228-861112/HD RA-861113-891120/HD Highest Grade: SSG/E-6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B30, Infantryman GT: 103 EDU: GED Overseas: Germany, Italy Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM (2), GCM (3), NDSM, ASR, NCOPDR (2), OSR, AAB, PB V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None were submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 13 May 1991, the applicant was barred to reenlistment. On 23 April 1991, the applicant reviewed and acknowledged receiving a copy of the unit commander's recommendation and submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 13 May 1991, the separation authority approved the bar to reenlistment, and directed that the applicant be advised that should he feel he would be unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment, he may request immediate discharge under the provisions of Chapter 16, AR 635-200. On 17 May 1991, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 16, AR 635-200, locally imposed bar to reenlistment. On 17 May 1991, the unit commander recommended approval. On 28 May 1991, the separation authority directed that the applicant be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), with a characterization of service of Honorable. On 7 June 1991, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the IRR. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5(b) states, in pertinent part, that soldiers who perceive that they will be unable to overcome a locally imposed bar to reeenlistment may request immediate separation. Army policy states that the service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for his discharge be denied. The analyst noted that the unit commander properly initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 16, AR 635-200 by reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment with an honorable characterization of service. The applicant acknowledged that he understood that once separated, he would not be permitted to reenlist and that he would be ineligible for further military service. The analyst found that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the separation (SPD) code for this type of discharge is normally KGF, with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 4. Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge and the separation code that was assigned to the narrative reason was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 21 February 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, 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: 23 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003835 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages