Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/04/22 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests an upgrade of his discharge to fully honorable. He contends his discharge was to be honorable due to medical reasons preventing him from accomplishing the more strenuous activities of his daily duties and disqualifying him from deployment and jump status. 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: 011015 Discharge Received: Date: 011026 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: LHJ Unit/Location: Headquarters Support Company, 3-10th Bn, Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Carson, CO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 010501, without authority, failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty x 2 (010126), (010126); willfully disobeyed a lawful command from a 2LT, to stop using an unauthorized meal card (010314); derelict in the performance of his duties x 2, by failing to properly sign ammunition over to an NCO before departing the range (010123), and failed to dispatch a LMTV vehicle (010123); with intent to deceive, made a false official statement to a 2LT, in that everything was squared away for the following days range (010416); and stole military dining facility meals, of a value of about $550, the property of the United States Army (000221-010406); reduction to E-3, forfeiture of $653 pay x two months (suspended); and extra duty for 45 days (FG). Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 18 Current ENL Date: 980702 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 25 Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 03 Mos, 25 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 55B10 Ammunition Spec GT: 116 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Castle Rock, CO Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant claims he was a consultant to the Navy at FNMOC (Naval Research Lab, Exploratory Projects), and served both the DoD and DoE. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 10 October 2001, 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 failing to be present and on time for formations on numerous occasions and failing to obey lawful orders from commissioned officers, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board,contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service of no less favorable than honorable; however, the applicant was not entitled to an administrative separation board, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 16 October 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 during the period of enlistment under review and the issues 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 applicant's service at the time of separation 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. The applicant contends that his discharge was to be honorable due to medical reasons preventing him from accomplishing the more strenuous activities of his daily duties and disqualifying him from deployment and jump status. However, the record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted by the applicant, that the discharge was the result of any medical condition. Further, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. 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. The analyst acknowledges the applicant's successful transition to civilian life and noted the many accomplishments outlined with the application. However, in review of the applicant’s entire service record, the analyst found that these accomplishments did not overcome the reason for discharge and characterization of service granted. 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 January 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293, dated (100416). 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 0 No change 5 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: None 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 AR20100013575 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 pages