Application Receipt Date: 061208 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 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: 920910 Discharge Received: Date: 921118 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For The Good of The Service -In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Co E, 407th Supply and Transport Bn 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None The analyst noted that the applicant was reduced from SPC to PV1 920731 Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): DOLO, FTR, 920909 Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier's Overall Record DOB: 680928 Current ENL Date: 870409 Current ENL Term: 3 Years Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 08Mos, 07Days Total Service: 5 Yrs, 07Mos, 10Days Previous Discharges: RA 870409-900311/HD Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 43E1P/Parachute Rigger GT: 105 EDU: NIF Overseas: Saudi Arabia Combat: Saudi Arabia 900907-910405 Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM, SWASM w/Bronze Star-2, KLM-SA 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 0 September 1992, the applicant was charged with (wrongfully failing to go to extra duty and failing to remain within specified limits 27 and 28 August 1992). On 16 November 1992, 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 commander and intermediate commander recommended approval of a Bad Conduct Discharge. On 3 November 1992, the separation authority approved the discharge with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. 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 available military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues 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 analyst noted that the applicant was reduced from SPC to PV1 920731, no ART 15 in the file). The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant's characterization of service is now too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst noted that the overall length of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and time elapsed mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant's characterization of service be upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 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 No change - Character Change No change - Reason (Board member names available upon request) IX. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation Case report reviewed and verified by: Timon M. Oujiri, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: Other: RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060016802 Applicant Name: ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages