Application Receipt Date: 060526 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: 040304 Discharge Received: Date: 040417 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: HQ & HQ Company, 524th Military Intelligence Battalion, 501st Military Intelligence Brigade, Youngsan Transition Center, APO, AP 96205-0089 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 040220, with intent to defraud, falsely made the signature of a CPT upon a dispatch request (040112), (Summarized) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 781212 Current ENL Date: 021023 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 5 Mos, 25 Days ????? Total Service: 1 Yrs, 5 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 56M10 Chaplain Assistant GT: 97 EDU: Coll Grad Overseas: Korea (030324-040417) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: GCMDL, NDSM, KDSM, ASRA 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 4 March 2004, 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 (received a Summarized Article 15 for forging a signature to a vehicle dispatch, several counseling statements for substandard performance, failure to follow orders, failure to be at her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed, failure to wear the proper uniform, and dereliction of duty), with an honorable discharge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 18 March 2004, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge. 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, the issue and the independent evidence she submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the applicant's narrative reason for discharge. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter l3, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge. The evidence of record further shows that command attempted to assist the applicant in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment. The applicant failed to respond appropriately to these efforts. Therefore, it is recommended to the Board that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 28 March 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: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 30 March 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060007479 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 pages