Application Receipt Date: 060302 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 920923 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: For the Good of the Service-In Lieu of Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 902d Engineer Company, 169th EngineerBattalion (Prov), 1st Engineer Brigade (Center) (Prov), Fort Leonard Wood, MO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): Article 15 was not found in record, however, DD Form 4856 (General Counseling Form) dated 920305, makes reference to applicant having received a company grade Article 15 on 910925, for violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 711204 Current ENL Date: 900927 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 27Days ????? Total Service: 01 Yrs, 11Mos, 27Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 12C10 (Bridge Crewmember) GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Southwest Asia Combat: Kuwait (910111-910515) Decorations/Awards: ASR, KLM, NDSM, SWASM, Certificate of Achievement (1) 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: Evidence of record shows that on 18 September 1992, Orders 262-20, DA, Headquarters, United States Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, discharged the applicant from the Regular Army, effective date: 23 September 1992. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to his 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. His DD Form 214 indicates that he was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service-in lieu of 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 court-martial) with a reentry eligibility (RE) code of "3." 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 independent evidence he submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the characterization of service 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 was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst determined that the overall length of the applicant's service to include his combat service, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action will entail a grade restoration to private/ E3. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 17 April 2007 Location: Chicago, IL 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 discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it. Case report reviewed and verified by: Eric S. Moore, Examiner X. Board Action Directed No Change Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 8 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003144 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages