Application Receipt Date: 2006/09/20 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See attached DD 293. Summary, applicant request all badges updated (two silver stars and one bronze star) 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: 1991/10/07 Discharge Received: Date: 1991/10/23 Chapter: 13 Para 13-2a AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: C Company 3rd Battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82 Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5100 Time Lost: AWOL 16 Days (910823-910909) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): (910924) On or about 0645 hours on 23 Aug 91, without authority, absent yourself from your unit, to wit Co C, 3-505th PIR, located at bldg #C - 7634, and did remain so absent until on or about 0630 hours, 10 Sep 91 (AWOL 16 Days). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 67/04/26 Current ENL Date: 1990/05/30 Current ENL Term: 4 Years 17 Weeks Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 04Mos, 06Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 04Mos, 06Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B1P Infantryman GT: 90 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Kuwait (900901-910330) Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM, CIB, SWAEMw/2BSS, KLM(s), KLM (K) 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 7 October 1991, 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 (you will not develop sufficiently to become a satisfactory soldier; received a field grade article 15, and repeated counseling statements), with a general 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 (submitted) a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 15 October 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general 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 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 analyst determined the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 October 2007 Location: Washington DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None 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 5 No change 0 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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 combat sevice and time elapsed. Case report reviewed and verified by: Earl Silver, 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: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 02 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013361 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages