Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071116 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and documents submitted by the applicant. 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: 970828 Discharge Received: Date: 981124 Chapter: 4-2A AR: 600-8-24 Reason: Substandard Performance RE: SPD: JHK Unit/Location: D Co, 1-14 Avn Regt, Fort Rucker, AL 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 Year/Month: 5405 HOR City, State: Anderson, IN Current ENL Date: 841219 Current ENL Term: INDEF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 13 Yrs, 11Mos, 06Days ????? Total Service: 15 Yrs, 7Mos, 16Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 931019-941218/HD Highest Grade: CW3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 152FC AH-64 Pilot GT: NA EDU: Associate Overseas: Germany, Korea, SWA Combat: SWA (910420-911002) Decorations/Awards: AM-2, ARCOM-2, AAM-2, JMUA, AGCM, NDSM, KLM, HSM, ASR, OSR, SAAB V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 25 June 1998, the applicant was notified of initiation of elimination proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 4, AR 600-8-24, by reason of substandard performance of duty. The applicant was directed to show cause for his retention in the Army for failing to achieve satisfactory progress after enrollment in the Army Weight Control Program. He was advised that he could submit a voluntary resignation in lieu of elimination or submit a rebuttal and request an appearance before a Board of Inquiry. On 29 April 1998, the applicant appeared, with counsel, before a Board of Inquiry (Show Cause Board). The Board found that the applicant had failed to achieve satisfactory progress IAW AR 600-9 Army Weight Control Program. The Board recommended separation with a honorable discharge. The Ad Hoc Review Board recommended that the applicant’s elimination be accepted with issuance of a honorable discharge. On 6 October 1998, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Army Review Boards) approved the recommendation of the Army Ad Hoc Review Board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of honorable. The file contains an Ad Hoc Officer Elimination Case for CW3 Paul D. Swanson, dated 6 October 1998. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 600-8-24 sets forth the basic authority for Officer Transfers and Discharges. Chapter 4 outlines the policy and procedure for the elimination of officers from the active Army for substandard performance of duty, misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, and in the interest of national security. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the entire applicant’s military records, the issues, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst determined that the evidence was not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change in the reason for discharge under review. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 4, Paragraph 4-2a, AR 600-8-24. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is “Substandard Performance", and the separation code is "JHK." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 080905 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: Proper Improper 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 narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 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: 080907 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070016595 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages