Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/10/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 149 and supporting documents in lieu of a 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 040723 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: Twenty Nine Palms Vet MC, Fort Irwin, CA Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 25 Current ENL Date: 020104 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 6 Mos, 20 Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 6 Mos, 20 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91T10 Animal Care Spec GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWTSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that she has reenlisted in the Army Reserves, and submitted a copy of DD Form 4/1 and DD Form 4/2. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to the applicant's discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of JHJ (i.e., unsatisfactory performance). Further, the evidence of record shows that on 19 July 2004, DA, HQ, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA, Orders 201-26 discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, with an effective date 23 July 2004. 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 available military records, the issue and documents submitted with the application, 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 the applicant's discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's signature. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and the analyst presumed Government regularity in the discharge process. Further, the DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Barring evidence to the contrary, the analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. Furthermore, the analyst noted the applicant's issue and other documents submitted with her application outlining her successful accomplishment since separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for her efforts. 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: 5 August 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 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 AR20080015940 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages