Application Receipt Date: 060303 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: 970924 Chapter: 3 AR: 635-200 Reason: Court-Martial, Other RE: SPD: JJD Unit/Location: 463d Military Police Company, United States Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Time Lost: Confined 84 days (960126-960129, 960319-960320 (Civil Authority), and 960423-960710 (Military Authority/Pre-Trial Confinement) Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): No Artice 15's were found in the applicant's record, however, a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 960131 makes reference to the applicant being reduced to PFC under Article 15 proceedings. Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NIF Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 670719 Current ENL Date: 930415 Current ENL Term: 4 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 15Days (Includes 441 days of excess leave(960711-970924)) Total Service: 04 Yrs, 02Mos, 15Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91B10 (Medical Specialist) GT: 109 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, OSR 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 applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army. However, the record shows that on 27 August 1997, the sentence of a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 89 days, and reductiion to the grade of private E1, having been affirmed pursuant to Article 71© having been complied ordered that the bad-conduct discharge to be executed. Furthermore, the applicant's record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). Her DD Form 214 indicates that she was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 3, section IV, AR 635-200 by reason of court-martial, with a bad conduct discharge, with a reeentry eligibility code of 4. b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 3, Section IV, establishes policy and procedures for separating members with a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge; and provides that a Soldier will be given a bad conduct discharge pursuant only to an approved sentence of a general or special court-martial; and that the appellate review must be completed and the affirmed sentence ordered duly executed. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available records for the period of enlistment under review, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would warrant clemency. The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events that led to her discharge from the Army. However, the applicant’s record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214. This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and Government regularity is presumed in the discharge process. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was adjudged guilty by court-martial and that the convening authority approved the sentence. Court-martial convictions stand as adjudged or modified by appeal through the judicial process. The Board is empowered to change the characterization of the discharge only if clemency is determined to be appropriate. Clemency is an act of mercy, or instance of leniency, to moderate the severity of the punishment imposed. A change in the reason for discharge is not authorized under Federal statute. Therefore, the analyst recommends that clemency is not warranted in this case. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070110 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 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: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070116 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060003179 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages