Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 071101 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant 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? Tender Offer: NA See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits III. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 931010 Discharge Received: Date: 931110 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: D Co, 1-5 IN Bn, APO AP 96224 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 21 Current ENL Date: 900529 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 12Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 05Mos, 12Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11M10 Fighting Vehicle Infantryman GT: 89 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia/Korea Combat: Saudi Arabia (921020-921220) Decorations/Awards: NDSM, SWASM-1 BSS, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Perry, FL Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 10 October 1993, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense for uttering 13 worthless checks between (930622-930806), totaling $3,800 and all except one of these checks was in the amount $300; with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 19 October 1993, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant's record contains an approved Bar to Reenlistment dated 5 August 1993. The applicant's record contains a DA Form 4187 dated 5 August 1991, which shows that the applicant was reduced to E-1 by Article 15. However, that document is not part of the available record. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, however, a general under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s military records during the priod of enlistment under review, the isues and documents he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to fully honorable. 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The analyst found that the length of the applicant's service (i.e., served 03 Yrs, 05 Mos, 12 Days of a 4 year enlistment contract) to include his combat service, mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends that the applicant’s characterization of service be upgraded to fully honorable. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was fully supported by the record and therefore, remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 24 September 2008 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: NA Witnesses/Observers: NA Exhibits Submitted: NA VIII. 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 inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 3 No change 2 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Issue a new DD Form 214 Colonel, U.S. Army Change Characterization to: President, Army Discharge Review Board Change Reason to: Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20070015569 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages