Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 070726 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: 920529 Discharge Received: Date: 920714 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: E Co, MSB, Fort Hood, TX 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 Year/Month: 7003 HOR City, State: Elyria, OH Current ENL Date: 891114 Current ENL Term: 4 Years 22 Weeks Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 08 Mos, 01 Days ????? Total Service: 02 Yrs, 08 Mos, 01 Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 31K10 Combat Signaler GT: 110 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia Combat: Saudi Arabia (901223-910504) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, AAM, NDSM, SWASM-3 BSS, ASR, OSR, KLM-SA, KLM-KU V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant submitted documentation which shows he is employed by Kellog, Brown and Root Services, Inc, as a contractor in operational support of the U.S. Army's LOGCAP contract in support of U.S Forces in various OCONUS locations. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 20 May 1992, the applicant was charged with wrongful use of marijuana between (920307-920407). On 27 May 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 recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The intermediate and senior commanders recommended approval of the request for discharge for the good of the service with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 3 June 1992, the separation authority 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 issues and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit a partial upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The analyst does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service; the time that has elapsed since his discharge, and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that the applicant’s characterization of service be partially upgraded to general, under honorable conditions. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 11 July 2008 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 and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. 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. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. 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: SPC/E-4 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 16 July 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070010445 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages