Application Receipt Date: 060323 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: 930922 Discharge Received: Date: 931006 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: 664th Ordance Company, 553rd S&S Bn Fort Hood, TX 76544 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 920904-without authority fail to go to appointed place of duty, (CG.) The reduction to E-1 and forfeiture $183.00 pay for one month, suspended until 2 December 1992, was vacated on 2 September 1992, for not registering your POV on post and driving with expired license plates. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 721004 Current ENL Date: 911015 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 11 Mos, 22 Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 11 Mos, 22 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 62F10 Crane Operator GT: 100 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None 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 22 September 1993, 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 (you have little regard for your responsibilities in ensuring that all professional financial obligations are met, you previously received an Art 15 dated 4 September 1992, for failure to be at your appointed place of duty, more recently, you received a Bar to Reenlistment for indebtness dated 9 July 1993), 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 1 October 1993, 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 930709. 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 misconduct is not condoned, the nature of the offense and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061002 Location: Waashington, 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 based on the circumstances surrounding the discharge and the time that has elasped since his discharge. 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 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. 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: ESMERALDA G. PROCTOR DATE: 061013 Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004116 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages