Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 080201 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: "My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 87 months of service with no other adverse action." II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 021120 Discharge Received: Date: 021217 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: A Co, 701st Maint Spt Bn, APO AE 09031 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 020903, Failure to go at the time prescribed to her appointed place of duty x 4 (020418, 020723, 020724, 020725, 020726), failure to pay just debt being indebted in the sum of $3555.00 for rent from 020331-020729; Reduction to E4, extra duty for 45 days, suspended (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 34 Current ENL Date: 010627 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05 Mos, 10 Days ????? Total Service: 07 Yrs, 02 Mos, 16 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 951002-980128/HD RA 980129-991212/HD RA 991213-010626/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 77F Petroleum Supply Spec GT: 95 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea, Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM x2, NDSM x2, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Hope Mills, NC Post Service Accomplishments: None listed by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 November 2002, 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 for having received a Field Grade Article 15 on 3 September 2002 for multiple failures to report and having been counseled numerous other times for misconduct, with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was advised of her rights, waived counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 21 November 2002, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the Applicant be discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge. The Applicant was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group until she completed her statutory service obligation. 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, under honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a fully 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 she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By her unsatisfactory performance, the Applicant diminished the quality of her 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: 14 November 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 0 No change 5 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080002093 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages