Application Receipt Date: 060320 Prior Review Prior Review Date: None I. Applicant Request Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 with attachment 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: 031006 Discharge Received: Date: 040109 Chapter: 14 AR: 635-200 Reason: Misconduct RE: SPD: JKA Unit/Location: B Company, 3rd Soldier Support Battalion, 24th Corps Support Group, 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, GA 31314 Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 030728, wrongfully solicit a PVT to disobey a lawful order by assisting him in breaking his restriction and driving him to Conneticut (030607), (Field Grade) Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 780730 Current ENL Date: Reenl/011212 Current ENL Term: 3 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 0 Mos, 28 Days ????? Total Service: 7 Yrs, 2 Mos, 4 Days ????? Previous Discharges: RA-961106-011211/HD Highest Grade: E5 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 42A10 SR Personnel GT: 96 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: Korea (970625-980000) Combat: None Decorations/Awards: GCMDL (2), NDSM, NCOPDR, 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: Evidence of record shows that on 18 September 2003, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct—pattern of misconduct (assaulted two different soldiers on two separate occasions, communicated a threat to injure another soldier, failed to report on numerous occasions, aided another soldier in breaking restriction and failed to pay debts on numerous occasions), with an under other than honorable conditions dishcarge. She was advised of her rights. The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than a general, under honorable conditions discharge and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts. The intermediate commanders reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval of the separation action with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 23 October 2003, the separation approving authority disapproved the request for a conditional waiver and approved the applicant request for a personal appearance before an administrative separation board. On 30 October 2003, the applicant was notified to appear before an administrative separation board and advised of her rights. On 19 November 2003, the board met, applicant appeared with counsel. The board recommended separation with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 24 December 2003, the separation authority approved the findings and recommendations of the board and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. The applicant has a Military Police Report dated (030112) in her OMPF 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, and 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 she 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 her service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. By her misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of her service below that meriting a fully honorable 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. 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: 31 January 2007 Location: Washington, DC 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 does not condone the applicant’s misconduct; however, determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable. The Board found that the overall length and quality of the applicant's service and her post service accomplishments mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions discharge. 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 SPC/E4. Case report reviewed and verified by: Mr. Ron Williams, 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/E4 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 2 February 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060004581 Applicant Name: Ms ______________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 pages