Application Receipt Date: 060322 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and statements of support. 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: 911209 Discharge Received: Date: 911227 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: A Battery, 6th Battalion, 37th Field Artillery, 2d Infantry Division, APO Area Pacific Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 911018/FTR/CG 911127/Disorderly conduct/FG Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 590111 Current ENL Date: 900509 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 07Mos, 19Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 07Mos, 19Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13M10 (Multiple Rocket Launch Systems Crewmember) GT: 111 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 9 December 1991, 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 (unsatisfactory duty performance), 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. The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant has a Military Police Report dated 4 November 1991, in his OMPF. 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 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 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: 070131 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. The Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070202 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004108 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages