Application Receipt Date: 060518 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. The applicant stated in essence that time in service creditable for pay was incorrect and resulted in his choice to go AWOL. He has submitted LES statements and time computation for pay service documents. II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Yes No Tender Offer: ????? See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Original Character of Discharge Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 030404 Discharge Received: Date: 030527 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 92nd Chemical Company, Home Detachment, Fort Stewart, GA 31314 Time Lost: 521 days (010917-030305)/Surrendured to Military Authorities Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 661217 Current ENL Date: 001220 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 0 Yrs, 11 Mos, 12 Days ????? Total Service: 14 Yrs, 11 Mos, 20 Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR 861028- 870113/NA RA 870114-900108/HD USAR 900109-001219/NA Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 54B10 Chemical Operations Specialist GT: 102 EDU: GED Overseas: Germany (870515-890514) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Addres Post Service Accomplishments: None Submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 11 April 2003, the applicant was charged with AWOL (010917-030305). On 5 May 2003, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 in lieu of trial by court-martial. In this request, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. Further, the applicant indicated that he understood that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander, and intermediate commanders, recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 8 May 2003, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to General Under Honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after full consideration of his faithful and honorable service, as well as his record of misconduct. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condone, the circumstances surrounding the discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 4 December 2006 Location: Washington, D.C. Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A VIII. Board Decision The discharge was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The characterization of service was: Proper Improper Equitable Inequitable The narrative reasons were: Equitable Inequitable DRB voting record: Change No change (Character) Change No change (Reason) (Board member names available upon request) IX. 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 not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 7 December 2006 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060007024 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages