Application Receipt Date: 060508 Prior Review Prior Review Date: 041027 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: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 031230 Chapter: 10 AR: 635-200 Reason: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial RE: SPD: KFS Unit/Location: 489th Engineer Battalion 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: 811003 Current ENL Date: 030212 Current ENL Term: NIF Years ????? Current ENL Service: 00 Yrs, 10Mos, 19Days ????? Total Service: 05 Yrs, 00Mos, 10Days ????? Previous Discharges: USAR-981221-000604/NA ADT-000605-000720/UNC USAR-000721-030211/NA (Concurrent Service) Highest Grade: E4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No MOS: 21B10 (Combat Engineer) GT: 115 EDU: 15 yrs Overseas: Iraq Combat: Iraq (Dates unknown) Decorations/Awards: ARCAM, NDSM (2), AFRM w/M Dev, ASR, C/Ach 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: The evidence of record shows that on 22 October 2003, the applicant was charged with through design miss the movement of the 489th Engineer Battalion's transport to the airport with which he was required in the course of duty to move (031005) and disobeyed a lawful order from a SSG (031005). On 28 October 2003, 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 submitted a statement in his own behalf. On 16 November 2003, 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 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, documents and the issue he submitted, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The applicant consulted with defense counsel, and voluntarily in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial. In doing so, the applicant admitted guilt to the stipulated or lesser-included offenses under the UCMJ. The analyst noted that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. It is also noted that the characterization of service for this type of discharge is normally under other than honorable conditions and that the applicant was aware of that prior to requesting discharge. 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. In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing Type of Hearing: Date: 12 June 2007 Location: Atlanta Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: None Exhibits Submitted: 20 additional documents in support of case. 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 5 No change 0 - Character Change 5 No change 0 - 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 discharge is now inequitable. While the applicant's misconduct is not condoned, the Board found that the applicant's overall length and quality of service to include his combat service, the circumstances surrounding his discharge, and his post service accomplishments, mitigated the discrediting entries in the service record. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to fully honorable and change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. This action does entail a restoration of grade to specialist four/E4, and a change to the reentry eligibility (RE) code to "1." 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: Secretarial Authority under Chapter 5, AR 635-200. Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: E4 XI. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: MARY E. SHAW DATE: 25 June 2007 Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army Chief, Secretary Recorder ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number AR20060006709 Applicant Name: Mr. ______________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 pages