Application Receipt Date: 060420 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: 001025 Discharge Received: Date: 010222 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 106th Medical Detachment, Yongsan, Korea Time Lost: AWOL 89 days 990812-991108, applicant surrendered to military authority. Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Counseling Records Available: Yes No IV. Soldier’s Overall Record DOB: 771019 Current ENL Date: 970128 Current ENL Term: 04 Years ????? Current ENL Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 26Days (Includes 465 days of excess leave 991116-010222) Total Service: 03 Yrs, 09Mos, 26Days ????? Previous Discharges: None Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 91R10 (Veterinary Food Inspection Specialist) GT: 113 EDU: Coll Grad Overseas: Korea Combat: None Decorations/Awards: ASR V. Post-Discharge Activity Home of Record: Current Address: Post Service Accomplishments: Has received a Associates Degree in Computer Programming from [ redacted ] and a BS in Management of Human Resources from [redacted] University. She states, she is a member of a national community organization "Big Brothers/Big Sisters." 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 12 August 1999 to 9 November 1999. On 15 November 1999, 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 she understood that she could receive a under other than honorable conditions discharge and that the discharge would have a significant effect on eligibility for veteran’s benefits. The applicant did submit a statement in her own behalf. On 21 December 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of a under other than honorable conditions discharge and directed that she be reduced to private E-1. 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 she submitted, the analyst found several mitigating factors that would warrant an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions. This recommendation was made after full consideration of her faithful and honorable service, as well as her record of misconduct. 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 determined that the overall length of the applicant's service, the circumstances surrounding the discharge, and her post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record. However, the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable. This action entails a restoration of grade to specialist four/E4. 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 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: 070216 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060005699 Applicant Name: Ms. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages