Application Receipt Date: 060124 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293. 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: 960819 Discharge Received: Date: 961126 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: Co E 703rd Support Bn Fort Stewart, GA Time Lost: AWOL-85 days (960415-960709) apprehended by civil authorities in London, KY and transferred to Fort Knox. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 760902 Current ENL Date: 941007 Current ENL Term: 5 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 25 Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 10 Mos, 25 Days the applicant had 133 days excess leave (960710-961126). Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 35E10 Radio/Comsec Repairer GT: 113 EDU: HS Letter Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: The applicant states he is currently serving in the Kentucky Army National Guard. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 16 July 1996, the applicant was charged with AWOL (960415-960709). On 16 July 1996, 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 12 September 1996, 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 careful review of all the applicant's military records during the period of enlistment under review, and the issue he submitted, the analyst recommends that the applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service be denied. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser included offenses under UCMJ. All the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of this prior to requesting discharge. The reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 061206 Location: Washington, DC 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 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 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 now inequitable. The Board found that the circumstances surrounding the discharge and his post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. However, the Board determined that the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. This action entails a restoration of grade to PFC/E3. 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: None RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: PFC/E3 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 061208 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060001348 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages