Application Receipt Date: 060323 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293, with attachments. The applicant has submitted 10 pages of documents from his OMPF and an additional 94 pages of progress and treatment docments from a Treatment Care Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 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: 961001 Discharge Received: Date: 970123 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 118th Military Police Company, 503rd Military Police Battalion (ABN), Fort Bragg, NC 28307 Time Lost: AWOL 51 days from (960702-960822)/The applicant was apprehended by military authorites at Fort Bragg, NC and transferred to Ft Knox, KY 40121-5238 Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 750501 Current ENL Date: 940224 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 9 Mos, 8 Days ????? Total Service: 2 Yrs, 9 Mos, 8 Days The applicant was placed on excess leave for a total of 147 days from (960830-970123). Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11B10, Infantryman GT: 103 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Haiti Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, AFEM, ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: None were submitted. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: The evidence of record shows that on 29 August 1996, the applicant was charged with AWOL (960702-960823). On 29 August 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 9 October 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 at any time after the charges are preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court martial. 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 he submitted, the analyst found a mitigating factor that would merit 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. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the characterization of service is too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, and the time that has elasped since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. However, the reason for discharge remains both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 7 February 2007 Location: Washington, D.C. 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 was too harsh and as a result it is now inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and the time that has elapsed since his discharge, mitigated the discrediting entry in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant full relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. This action entails a restoration of grade to SPC/E-4. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. John Zangas, 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/E-4 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 9 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004135 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages