Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/07/01 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states he was advised that he would receive an automatic upgrade. 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: 980305 Discharge Received: Date: 980514 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: A Company, 2d Battalion, 82d Aviation Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 971223, failure to clean organizational clothing and equipment (971223), 14 days of extra duty (Sum). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 26 Current ENL Date: 940222 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 23Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 23Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 67T/Helicopter Repairer GT: 130 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Tulsa, OK Post Service Accomplishments: None listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 05 March 1998, 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 with a honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. There is no record that the applicant consulted with legal counsel, or was advised of the impact of the discharge action. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable discharge. On 08 March 1998, 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 and the issue 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 the applicant’s issue about his request for an automatic upgrade. However, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges. Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge. Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable. 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: 5 May 2010 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None 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 2 No change 3 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 Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090011966 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages