Application Receipt Date: 060303 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 990217 I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting document. 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: 921124 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: NIF Unit/Location: Fort Dix, New Jersey Time Lost: AWOL, for a total of 214 days (910905-920407). How the applicant was returned to military control is not in the available record. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 701020 Current ENL Date: 890411 Current ENL Term: 05 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 00Mos, 12Days ????? Total Service: 03 Yrs, 00Mos, 12Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: NIF GT: 105 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: NIF Combat: NIF Decorations/Awards: AAM, NDSM, ASR, OSR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant's states that he has obtained a bachelor and master's degree and is currently working as a contractor for the office of Homeland Security. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that the applicant was charged with going AWOL from 5 September 1991 to 8 April 1992. On 16 April 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. Further, the applicant indicated that he understood that he could receive a under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did submit a statement in his own behalf. The commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with a under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 15 July 1992, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions and directed that he 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 available military records, and the issue he submited, 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 and quality of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, 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 specialist four/E4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 14 May 2007 Location: Tampa, FL Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: none 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 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: ????? Other: ????? RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: ????? XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 18 May 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003163 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 pages