Application Receipt Date: 060802 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached 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: 020301 Discharge Received: Date: 020618 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Headquarters Company MCB, WRAMC, Washington, DC 20307-5001 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 641219 Current ENL Date: 980610 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 19 Days ????? Total Service: 13 Yrs, 02 Mos, 00 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-890419-930114/HD RA-930115-960530/HD RA-960531-980609/HD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 63H10 Track Vehicle Repairer/12B10 Combat Engineer GT: 85 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM (4), NDSM (2), NCOPDR, ASR, CWR/Cert V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 22 January 2002, the applicant was charged with stealing a computer , of a value of about $2,008.00, the property of a SPC, (011108). On 20 February 2002, 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 did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit and intermediate commanders recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 May 2002, the intermediate commander recommended disapproval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and the referred matter to a General Court-Martial. On 6 June 2002, the senior inermediate commander (North Atlantic Fleet Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center), recommended approval of the request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge and forwarded it to the Commander, U.S. Military District of Washington . On 7 June 2002, the separation authority (Commander, U.S. Military District of Washington), 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 submit a request for a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, 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 during the period of enlistment under review, the issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommends 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 condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service; and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SSG/E6. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 1 August 2007 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA 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 3 No change 2 - Character Change 0 No change 5 - 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 does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant’s service, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SSG/E6 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 13 August 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060011520 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages