Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 070926 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and attached documents (8) 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 031105 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: A Company, U.S. Army Medical Activitiy, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas, 76544 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: 6409 HOR City, State: Rowlesburg, WV Current ENL Date: 010328 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 07Mos, 08Days ????? Total Service: 15 Yrs, 00Mos, 28Days ????? Previous Discharges: ARNG 840215-840502/NA ADT 840503-840811/HD ARNG 840812-890425/HD RA 890426-930625/HD (Break in Service) RA 980219-010327/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91W10/Health Care Spec GT: 99 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Israel, Southwest Asia, Germany, Saudi Arabia Combat: Kuwait (920201-920416) Decorations/Awards: AAM (3), AGCM (3) NDSM (2), SWASMw/2 BSS, NPDR, ASR, OSR, KLM-(K), KLM-(SA) V. Post-Discharge Activity 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 September 2003, the applicant was charged with willfully disobeying a lawful order from a CPT 030819 his superior commissioned officer, to "get on the airplane and depart for Korea". On 17 October 2003 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 submit a statement in his own behalf. On 24 October 2003, 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 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 evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service mitigated the discrediting entry 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 analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the reenlistment (RE) code was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SGT/E-5. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 5 September 2008 Location: Washington DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: Yes 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 4 No change 1 - 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 on the applicant’s length and quality of his service and the circumstances surrounding his misconduct and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to General, Under Honorable Conditions. The Board determined that the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it. 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: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: EDGER J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 5 September 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070013365 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 pages