Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/09/10 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and four supporting documents 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: 080306 Discharge Received: Date: 080417 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Participation RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: C Co, 212th CSC, Ft Campbell, KY Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 071002, failed to obey an order or regulation, 7 days extra duty, oral reprimand (Summarized) Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 22 Current ENL Date: 070622 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 09Mos, 26Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 10Mos, 22Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 050526-070621/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 68X10/Mental Health Spc GT: 111 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: SWA Combat: Iraq (060313-070312) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTSM, ICM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Las Vegas, NV Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 6 March 2008, 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 his failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test on two occasions (071107 and 071205), for being dismissed from the Warrior Leader’s Course for disciplinary reasons, and for his lack of motivation, with an honorable discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 21 March 2008, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general under honorable discharge. On 4 April 2008, 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 U.S. Army Reserve Control Group. 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 for the period of enlistment under review, the issue and supporting documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge to fully honorable. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of unsatisfactory performance. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance, however, determined that the characterization of service is now inequitable. The analyst found that the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance was mitigated by his overall service of sufficient length and quality as demonstrated by his earned awards and by the recommendations of several officers who had firsthand knowledge of his performance, and by his service in combat for one year. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 June 2009 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 1 No change 4 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: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080014110 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages