Application Receipt Date: 20061108 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the applicant. 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: 990818 Chapter: 3 AR: 635-200 Reason: Court-Martial Other RE: SPD: JJD Unit/Location: D Co, 2nd Bn, 63rd AR, APO, AE Time Lost: 44 days due to confinement by Special Court Martial (970828-971012). Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 970828, SPCM, for writing bad checks to the AAFES X 14 in the amount of $4098.63, (961224), (961229), (961229), (961231), (970101), (970102), (970105), (970107), (970108), (970112), (970113), (970115), 970121) and (970208). BCD, confinement for 2 months, reduction to E-1. Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier's Overall Record DOB: 771125 Current ENL Date: 960730 Current ENL Term: 3 Years Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 03Days Includes 636 days of excess leave (971121-990818) Total Service: 02 Yrs, 11Mos, 03Days Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-2 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 19K10 M1 Armor Crewman GT: NIF EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR 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 28 August 1997, the applicant was found guilty by a special court-martial of writing bad checks (14) to AAFES in the amount of approximately $4098.63, on or between (961224 thru 970208). He was sentenced to be discharged with a Bad Conduct Discharge, confinement for two months, and reduction to E1. On 20 November 1997, the sentence was approved. The record of trial was forwarded to The Judge Advocate General of The Army for review by the Court of Military Review. On 5 March 1999, DA, HQ USA Armor Center, Fort Knox, KY, Special Court Martial Orders 38, indicated that the United States Army Court of Military Review affirmed the approved findings of guilty and the sentence. On 5 March 1999, the sentence having been affirmed pursuant to Article 71c having been complied with, the sentence was ordered to be executed. The applicant was discharged from the Army with a Bad Conduct Discharge on 18 August 1999. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant's military records, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant clemency. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the incidents of misconduct. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by a court-martial and that the sentence was approved by the convening authority. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The analyst is empowered to recommend a change to the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length of service and time elasped, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. After a thorough review of the applicant's record and the issue he submitted, the analyst now believes clemency is warranted and therefore recommends to the Board that it grant clemency in the form of an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 071213 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 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, hearing his testimony and considering the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and clemency is warranted based on time elapsed since his discharge Accordingly, the Board voted to upgrade the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. A change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute. 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: NA Other: NA 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: 071215 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060015827 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages