Application Receipt Date: 060120 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 961106 I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents. 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 921218 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For The Good Of The Service RE: SPD: JFS Unit/Location: A Battery 2nd Bn 7th FA Fort Drum, NY 13602-5000 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 921103-having been restricted by a person authorized to do, did break said restriction x 2, (921008) and (921009), (FG). 901113-having received a lawful order from 1SG, did willfully disobey the same x 2, (900922) and (900916), (CG). Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 641210 Current ENL Date: 900922 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ext 7 months (860123) Current ENL Service: 02 Yrs, 02Mos, 26 Days ????? Total Service: 09 Yrs, 03 Mos, 13 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-830906-870326/HD RA-870327-900921/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 13E10 Cannon Fire Direction Spec/94B10 Food Service Spec GT: 122 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (2), AGCM, NDSM, NCOPDR, OSR, C/Ach V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 5 November 1992, the applicant was charged with carnal knowledge, (920901-921015) and adultery, (920901-921015). On 3 December 1992, 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. Furthermore, 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. On 7 December 1992, the SJA stated that the unit and battalion commanders recommended disapproval of the request and if the request was approved, they recommended separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The brigade commander recommended approval with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 7 December 1992, 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. A local Bar To Reenlistment was approved on (921021). 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 issue and documents he submitted, the analyst recommend 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 is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. However, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070305 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: No Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: None 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 No change (Character) Change No change (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, hearing his testimony, and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, the time that has elasped since his discharge and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, 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 SPC/E4. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Kenneth McFarley, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: None Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: SPC/E4 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070307 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060001016 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages