Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071010 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 and supporting documentation 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: 070309 Discharge Received: Date: 070328 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: HQ, US Army Garrison Command, Fort Knox, KY Time Lost: AWOL 3731 days (961201-070219), surrendered. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Year/Month: 74/03 HOR City, State: Belzoni, MS Current ENL Date: 960223 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10 Mos, 17 Days includes34 days of excess leave (070223-070328) Total Service: 04 Yrs, 00 Mos, 10 Days includes 3 years, 1 month, 23 days of inactive service Previous Discharges: ARNG 931230-960222/NIF Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y Unit Supply Specialist GT: 98 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant provided documentation that he has been employed as a Deputy Marshal with the St. Louis City Marshal's Office since November 2, 2003, is a certified Peace Officer, earned a Class A license for law enforcement and, Certificates of Achievement from FEMA. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the Applicant was charged with being AWOL (961201-070219). On 22 February 2007, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of the Chapter 10 request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 9 March 2007, the separation authority approved the Chapter 10 request 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 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 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 noted that his post service accomplishments as a police officer for the past 5 years 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: 27 August 2008 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 1 No change 4 - 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. 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: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 27 August 2008 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070013923 ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 pages