Application Receipt Date: 060210 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: 990106 Discharge Received: Date: 990505 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 64TH AG Detachment (Replacement), Frankkfort, Germany Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 38 days from (980605-980712). The applicant surrendered to the military authorities at Fort Benning, GA, and was transferred to Fort Knox, KY 40121 Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 750915 Current ENL Date: Reenl/980324 Current ENL Term: 3 Years with an 8 month extension (980421) Current ENL Service: 1 Yrs, 0 Mos, 4 Days The applicant was placed on exces leave for a total of 293 days, from (980717-990505) Total Service: 4 Yrs, 1 Mos, 27 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-950131-980323/HD Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 62B10 Construction Equipment Repairer GT: 115 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Germany/Southwest Asia (Kuwait-980506-980604) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR 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 16 July 1998, the applicant was charged with AWOL, from (980605-980713). On 16 July 1998, 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 she understood that she 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 submitted a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander recommended approval of an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 1 February 1999, 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, and the issue she submitted, the analyst did not find said issue sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of the discharge under review. 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 the UCMJ. The analyst noted that 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 that prior to requesting discharge. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service remains both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 13 December 2006 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: N/A Witnesses/Observers: N/A Exhibits Submitted: N/A 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 inequitable. The Board found that the length and quality of the applicant’s service and the circumstances surrounding the discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. 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. Ron Williams, 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: 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: 15 December 2006 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060002221 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages