Application Receipt Date: 060927 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: Applicant states that he wants his discharge changed to Honorable because he was told that his discharge would change after a year from being discharged. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 010330 Chapter: 11 AR: 635-200 Reason: Entry Level Performance and Conduct RE: SPD: JGA Unit/Location: FTC 120th, Fort Jackson, SC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 750918 Current ENL Date: 000922 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 5Mos, 7Days ????? Total Service: 0 Yrs, 6Mos, 9Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-000922-001024/NA Highest Grade: E2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: None GT: UNK EDU: HS Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: None 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 29 March 2001, Orders 088-1301, DA, HQ, US Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, SC, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserves, effective date: 30 March 2001. The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct with an uncharacterized separation of service. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JGA (i.e., entry level performance and conduct) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. The specific facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s discharge from the Army are not contained in the available records. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11, of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or both, while in an entry level status. A soldier is in an entry level status, if before the date of initiation of separation, they have completed no more than 180 days of credible continuous active duty. Service for soldiers separated under this chapter is uncharacterized. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his discharge from the Army. However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. Furthermore, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that requires automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. 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: 28 November 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 0 No change 5 - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Esmeralda Proctor, 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: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 28 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013861 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages