Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/03/02 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See 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: 060929 Chapter: NIF AR: 135-178 Reason: NIF RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: 413d Chemical Co, Florence, SC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 010910 Current ENL Term: 8 Years USAR Current ENL Service: 5 Yrs, 00Mos, 19Days ????? Total Service: 5 Yrs, 00Mos, 19Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 030207-040613/HD (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 54B/Chemical Ops GT: NIF EDU: NIF Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, NDSM, GWOTEM, GWOTSM, AFRS w/M Device, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Moncks Corner, SC Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted 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 his discharge from the Army Reserve. The record indicates that on 29 September 2006, DA HQS, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmington, AL, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 29 September 2006, with a general, under 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. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 135-78 govern procedures covering enlisted personnel management of the Army Reserve. 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 all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, 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. On 29 September 2006, DA HQS, 81st Regional Readiness Command, Birmingham, AL, discharged the applicant from the Army Reserve, effective 29 September 2006, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. All the facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant’s discharge are not contained in the available records and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. Furthermore, the analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact the local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes. 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 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 that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 20 November 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090006718 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 pages