Application Receipt Date: 060414 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: 950207 Discharge Received: Date: 950315 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: C Company, 4th Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC Time Lost: AWOL 80 days 941101-950119, applicant surrendered to military authorities. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 751228 Current ENL Date: 930629 Current ENL Term: 03 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 28Days (Includes 49 days of excess leave 950126-950315) Total Service: 01 Yrs, 05Mos, 28Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E3 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 92Y10 (Automated Logistices Specialist) GT: 95 EDU: HS Grad Overseas: None Combat: None Decorations/Awards: NDSM, ASR, Parachutist Badge V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Applicant states he has worked for United Airlines for the past 9 1/2 years as a lead ramp serviceman. 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 1 November 1994 to 20 January 1995. On 25 January 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested, in writing, discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200 for the good of the service-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. On 22 February 1995, the separation authority approved the discharge with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. It was also directed that the applicant be reduced to private E1. 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 military records, and the independent evidence he submitted, the analyst recommends to the Board that the discharge be upgraded 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 applicant’s characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. The analyst found that the time that has elasped since his discharge and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entry in the service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action will entail a grade restoration to private first class/E3. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 070214 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 characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is now inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. The Board determined that the reason for 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: E3 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: ROBERT L. HOUSE Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 070216 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060005383 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages