Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2010/12/23 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he had a clean record during his military career and only received his general discharge because he requested an early out. 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: 030723 Discharge Received: Date: 030821 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory Performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: Company E, 187th Medical Battalion, Fort Sam Houston, TX 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: 23 Current ENL Date: Reenl/991203 Current ENL Term: 3 Years The applicant extended his enlistment for a period of 20 months on (010822); giving him a new ETS date of: (040802). Current ENL Service: 3 Yrs, 8 Mos, 19 Days ????? Total Service: 8 Yrs, 6 Mos, 11 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 950210-960117/NA RA 960118-991202/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91W10 Health Care Spec GT: 113 EDU: HS Grade Overseas: Korea (960925-970923) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM, GCMDL (2), NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: ????? Post Service Accomplishments: None submitted by the applicant. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 23 July 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13-2a, AR 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance in that he continued to have financial difficulty with his creditors even after seeking financial counseling with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 29 July 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 19 August 2003, the applicant again consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 18 August 2003, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation 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 which 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 his 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 his service below that meriting a fully honorable characterization of service. The analyst noted the applicant's issue that he had a clean record during his military career and only received his general discharge because he requested an early out. The evidence of record shows that the applicant received numerous negative counseling statements in reference to him not being able to handle his personal finances even after undergoing proper counseling. Further, The analyst found that the command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory soldier. The evidence of record further established that the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome the noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. Additionally, the analyst 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. Therefore, 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: 17 August 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 12 July 2010. 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: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change 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 AR20100030446 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages