Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2008/05/14 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: 931101 Discharge Received: Date: 931130 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: C Btry, 3rd Bn, 82nd FA, 1st Cav Div, Fort Hood, TX Time Lost: The applicant's DD Form 214 block 29 "Dates of Time Lost During this Period" makes reference to the applicant having a period of time lost for AWOL of 73 days (930607-930817),however, documents found in the applicant's record shows the period of time lost for AWOL should be 65 days (930607-930810), surrendered Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 20 Current ENL Date: 900104 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 08Mos, 16Days Includes 102 days of excess leave (930819-931130) Total Service: 03 Yrs, 08Mos, 16Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13B10/Cannon Crewmember GT: 111 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany, Southwest Asia Combat: Saudi Arabia (910107-910512) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM-2, SWASM (w/2 bss), KLM-SA, KLM-KU, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Temple, TX Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states that he has been employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs for 7 years and provides various certificates of accomplishments. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 18 August 1993, the applicant was charged with AWOL (930607 to 930811). On 19 August 1993, 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 an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 5 November 1993, 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 warrant 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 was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. 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 partial relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E-3. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 March 2009 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 was too harsh and as a result, it is 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. 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 PFC/E-3. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 5 No change 0 Reason - Change 0 No change 5 (Board member names available upon request) EDGAR J. YANGER Colonel, U.S. Army X. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: PFC/E-3 ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20080007958 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages