Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2011/04/13 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: The applicant states in effect, that he was led to believe that after six months his discharge would be changed over in order for him to receive the benefits in which he is entitled too. 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: 100929 Chapter: 13 AR: 635-200 Reason: Unsatisfactory performance RE: SPD: JHJ Unit/Location: 515th Engineer Company, 5th Engineer Battalion, 4th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 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: 24 Current ENL Date: Reenl/090109 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 8 Mos, 21 Days ????? Total Service: 4 Yrs, 10 Mos, 29 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA 051101-090108/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 21B10 Combat Engineer GT: 82 EDU: NIF Overseas: Korea, Southwest Asia Combat: Iraq (080502-090706) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, GCMDL, NDSM, GWOTSM, KDSM, ICMDLw/2 CS, 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 16 September 2010, 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 being cited for driving while intoxicated, lying to his superior commissioned officer, failing his last two Record Army Physical Fitness Tests and the Diagnostic Test prior to. The unit commander recommended separation with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. On 16 September 2010, the applicant waived legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander's recommendation to separate the applicant from the Army is not part of the available record and the analyst presumed government regularity in the discharge process. On 16 September 2010, 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 was led to believe that after six months his discharge would be changed over in order for him to receive the benefits in which he is entitled too. The US 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. The Defense Discharge Review Standards specifically state that no factors should be established that requires automatic change or denial of a change in discharge. Furthermore, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or 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. 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: 4 November 2011 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: DD Form 293 dated 26 March 2011. 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 Official: BONITA E. TROTMAN Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder 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 AR20110008219 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages