Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/08/13 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant. 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: 950222 Discharge Received: Date: 950330 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: HHC, 1-29 IN Regmt, Fort Benning, GA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 950209, failure to report (950123), and disorderly conduct; reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $199 and extra duty for 14 days (CG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 940118 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 13Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 02Mos, 13Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 45T10 BFVS Turret Mechanic GT: 108 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Farmington Hills, MI Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 February 1995, 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 being counseled for numerous FTRs, failure to follow orders, and disrespect, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 20 March 1995, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was not transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issues 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. Furthermore, the analyst noted the aplicant's issue that the offenses were minor. However, the analyst concluded that the applicant committed many discrediting offenses, which constituted a departure from the standards of conduct expected of Soldiers in the Army. Having examined all the circumstances, the analyst determined that the applicant’s numerous incidents of misconduct did indeed adversely affect the quality of service, brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. These incidents of misconduct clearly diminished the quality of the applicant’s service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that 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: 27 May 2009 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 X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080012856 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages