Applicant Name: ????? Application Receipt Date: 2009/04/28 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 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: NIF Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 970807 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: B Co, 169th EN Bn, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record Age at current enlistment: 34 Current ENL Date: 950504 Current ENL Term: 6 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 03Mos, 04Days ????? Total Service: 16 Yrs, 08Mos, 18Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-801120-810114/NA RA-810115-831222/HD RA-831223-880306/HD RA-880307-930113/HD RA-930114-950503/HD Highest Grade: E-7 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12B40 Combat Engineer GT: 111 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia Combat: Saudi Arabia (901203-910423) Decorations/Awards: BSM, MSM, ARCOM-2, AAM-6, AGCM-5, NDSM, SWASM-W/3 BSS, NCOPDR-3, ASR, OSR-3, KLM-SA, KLM-KU, V. Post-Discharge Activity City, State: Fitchburg, MA Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to a discharge from the Army. However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s signature. The DD Form 214 indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial, with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Furthermore, the DD Form 214 shows a Separation Code of KFS (i.e., for the good of the service-in lieu of trial by court-martial), with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "4." On 16 July 1997, DA, HQS, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Orders 197-0365, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 7 August 1997. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank. The applicant's record contains a CID Report of Investigation dated 1 March 1997. 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 and the issues that he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. There was a full consideration of all faithful and honorable service as well as the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses. The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is 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 entries in the service record. Accordingly, the analyst recommends to the Board that relief be granted in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service 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. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 18 February 2010 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. IX. Board Decision XI. Certification Signature Board Vote: Approval Authority: Character - Change 2 No change 3 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: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20090008538 ______________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 pages