Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/01/18 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant submitted no issues of inequity See enclosed DD Form 293 and 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 041004 Chapter: NIF AR: 135-178 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: 369th TC Co, Det 1, MD TRK PL, Wichita, KS Time Lost: NIF 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: 17 Current ENL Date: 990903 Current ENL Term: 8 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 5 Yrs, 1Mos, 1Days ????? Total Service: 5 Yrs, 1Mos, 1Days (Concurrent service USAR) Previous Discharges: NIF Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 73C10 Finance Spc GT: 94 EDU: High School Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: NIF V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Wichita, KS Post Service Accomplishments: Nothing provided by the Applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence shows the applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 4 October 2004, DA HQS, 89th Regional Readiness Command, 3130 George Washington Blvd, Wichita, KS, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 4 November 2004, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The record contains a properly constituted Order as described above. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 135-178, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-78 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200 covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the USAR. Paragraph 13-1 of that regulation provides in pertinent part that individuals can be separated for being an unsatisfactory participant. Army Regulation 135-91 states that a member is an unsatisfactory participant when nine or more unexcused absences from scheduled drills occur during a 1 year period. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of the applicant’s military records and the issue and documents submitted with the application, 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 the service was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By the unsatisfactory performance, the applicant diminished the quality of service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. The analyst noted the applicant’s issue of requesting her GI Bill benefits; eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board. Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance. Furthermore, the analyst determined that the applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) does not contain all the specific documents that would indicate the reason for the separation action from the United States Army. If the applicant desires to appear before a personal appearance Board, the burden of proof remains with the former Soldier to provide the appropriate documents or other evidence sufficient to explain the facts, circumstances, and reasons underlying the separation action, for the Board’s consideration. 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: 21 October 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 AR20090003046 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages