Application Receipt Date: 060803 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See former service member's (FSM) attached DD Form 293 and supporting 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: 930406 Discharge Received: Date: 930506 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For the Good of the Service, In Lieu of Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 13th United States Army Field Artillery Detachment, APO NY 09354 Time Lost: Absent without leave for a total of 1,047 days (900420-930301). FSM surrendered to military authority in Chicago, IL., and then transferred to Fort Knox, KY 40121-5000. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 590126 Current ENL Date: 840222 Current ENL Term: 06 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 06 Yrs, 04Mos, 03Days (Includes 37 days of excess leave 930331-930506) Total Service: 12 Yrs, 04Mos, 00Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-780225-780904/NA RA-780905-810308/HD RA-810309-840221/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 94B10 (Food Service Specilaist) GT: 96 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM (3d Award), AAM (2d Award), AGCM (3d Award), NCOPDR, ASR, OSR (2d Award) 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 30 March 1993, the former service member was charged with going AWOL from 20 April 1990 to 2 March 1993. On 30 March 1993, the FSM 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 FSM admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense. Further, the FSM 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 former service member did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander and intermediate commanders recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 13 April 1993, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The former service member was to be reduced to private/E1. 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 former service member's military records, and the issue that was submitted on his behalf, the analyst found two mitigating factor's that would merit an upgrade of the characterization of service 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. While the former service member's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the former service member's service and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 July 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 1 No change 4 - 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 determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief. Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 31 July 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060011746 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages