Application Receipt Date: 06/09/22 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See attached DD 293; Summary, the applicant states she feels that she deserves to be upgraded to an honorable discharge for the things she did in the Army not listed in her records. Wants a upgrade to HD and reason changed. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 05/04/27 Chapter: 14, Section III, Paragraph 14-12b AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Walter Reed Health Care System, Washington, DC 20307-5001 Time Lost: AWOL 41 days (20041222-20050202) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 83/08/19 Current ENL Date: 05/02/03 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 02Mos, 24Days ????? Total Service: 04 Yrs, 01Mos, 22Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA, 010123-050202 / HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31B10 Military Police 95B GT: 117 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ,NDSM, ASR, GWOTSM 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 the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-pattern of misconduct. Specifics reasons for discharge are as follows: failed to be at appointed place of duty, disrespect and contempt toward a NCO, repeatedly made false official statements and threatened to choke a NCO. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 13 April 2005, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records, and the issue she submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her 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 now inequitable. The overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the time that has elapsed since her discharge mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. However, the analyst found that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 31 October 2007 Location: Washington DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: None 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 5 No change 0 - 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 characterization of service was too harsh based upon the applicant's overall length of service and circumstances surrounding the discharge. Case report reviewed and verified by: Earl Silver, 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: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 2 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060013550 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 pages