Application Receipt Date: 060320 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See applicant's attached DD Form 293 and supporting documents. 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: 970423 Discharge Received: Date: 970508 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKQ Unit/Location: Combat Training Committee, 3d Training Brigade, USAEC&FLW, Fort Leonard Wood, MO Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 680813 Current ENL Date: 890609 Current ENL Term: 06 Years (On 960419, applicant extended his enlistment for a period of 7 months, giving him a new ETS of 970508). Current ENL Service: 07 Yrs, 11Mos, 00Days ????? Total Service: 10 Yrs, 09Mos, 10Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-860729-890608/HD Highest Grade: E6 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 11C10 (Indirect Fire Infantryman) GT: 121 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Hawaii,Saudia-Arabia Combat: Kuwait (910111-910413) Decorations/Awards: ARCOM, AAM (3d Award), AGCM (2d Award), NDSM, SWASM (w/3 bronze service stars), NCOPSR, OSR, KLM, Parachutist Badge, Air Assault Badge, Drill Sergeant Identification Badge, Certificate of Achievement (4) V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: States that for the past 3 years he has been the owner/director of the Identity Fraud Protective Services Bureau, a business designed to assist individuals in recovering their stolen identities. VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation a. Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 23 April 1997, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense (charged with burglary in the first degree, sexual assault in the first degree and attempted rape), with an under other than honorable discharge. He was advised of his rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. On 1 May 1997, 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. The applicant was to be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade of Private (E1). b. Legal Basis for Separation: Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. 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 no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By his misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable or general discharge. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant’s service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance. Furthermore, the analyst found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command. The analyst was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. 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 March 2007 Location: Dallas, TX 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, hearing his testimony 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 now inequitable. The Board found that the length and quality of the applicant's service, to include his combat service, and the time that has elasped since his discharge mitigated the discrediting entries in his service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable. However, 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 Staff Sergeant/E6. 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: E6 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 23 March 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004580 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 pages